ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Local Government (Equal Opportunities)

Valerie Vaz: If he will take steps to increase access to senior positions in local government for women and people from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds.

Andrew Stunell: This Government's guiding principles are freedom, fairness and responsibility. We want to remove barriers to equal opportunities and to build a fairer society. The new public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 will require councils to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between different groups, including between men and women and people from different ethnic backgrounds.

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, my figures show that there are 248 local authorities where women are not chief executives or leaders. In London, there is a black and minority ethnic population of 31% but only one chief executive officer from that community. Could he therefore confirm that he will encourage local authorities to use sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act, now in force, to redress that imbalance?

Andrew Stunell: I am very happy to give that assurance and to say, first, that her own local authority of Walsall has a good record in relation to the employment of BME staff. We need to recognise that local government has worked hard on this. The Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government has been working on it strongly. We had a conference in March-the Yes We Can conference-and are working towards a December follow-up. We need to remind local authorities that they have a duty under the Equality Act, but they also have a power to take positive action. I am certainly happy to work with the hon. Lady to achieve that.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend please confirm that offering salary packages to local government bureaucrats in excess of that earned by the Prime Minister will not form part of the strategy to recruit such people?

Andrew Stunell: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had some stern words to say about local authorities that do not take the hint and has called on those earning high salaries in the public sector to take a voluntary pay cut.

Housing (Local Authorities)

Iain Wright: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of voluntary organisations providing housing services for local authorities on the potential effects on that sector of future local government funding plans.

Grant Shapps: My Department has consulted widely with the voluntary sector in relation to the provision of housing services for local authorities, and we have listened carefully to the points they have raised. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have, for example, protected the homelessness grant, providing £400 million; protected the funding for disabled facilities grant; and minimised reductions to the Supporting People programme over the spending review.

Iain Wright: The voluntary groups in my constituency, such as Manor residents association, together in partnership with Housing Hartlepool and Hartlepool borough council, provide much-needed services such as handyman services, financial advice to tenants and tackling antisocial behaviour. Given that they derive their income from local authorities and the registered social landlord, and given yesterday's announcement of a real-terms cut of 26% in local authority budgets and the cutting by half of the social housing budget, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the voluntary groups where they will get their money from and how these services can be maintained?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman will know the backdrop to this, which is that when he was a Minister the Government literally ran out of money, and not just money from then taxpayers but money from the future, so some steps had to be taken. Despite that, however, we have still managed to protect all those different budgets, particularly that for Supporting People, which will be very important to his local authority: it is almost certainly where those voluntary services are getting quite a lot of their funding. We also heard the Chancellor announce yesterday a £100 million transition fund. I can further tell the hon. Gentleman that I am today announcing £12.25 million for local authorities and the voluntary sector to help households affected by changes in housing benefits. There is a whole package of services there. We absolutely recognise the need to protect the most vulnerable; it is a shame that his Government did not do the same as they spent all the money.

Caroline Flint: That was very interesting from the Minister, but it is clear that yesterday the Chancellor announced devastating cuts to house building and local government funding. Is it not the case that while across Whitehall Departments average cuts are 19%, town halls up and down the country will lose 28% of their funding?

Grant Shapps: I start by welcoming the right hon. Lady to her new position and to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box.
	We have already covered the backdrop. We know that the financial crisis was incredibly sharp and, as has been said, if the Opposition do not have a plan they cannot criticise the plans that have been put in place. Everybody in the country will want to know what the right hon. Lady's plans would have been. However, as it happens, and as she mentions house building as part of her critique, let me tell her that in the 13 Labour years, there was a net gain of just 14,000 affordable homes. We will build more affordable homes in every single year of our Government than Labour did in all its 13 years put together.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Minister for his words of welcome. There may come a time when we agree across the Dispatch Box, but today is not that day. The Chancellor was right about one thing yesterday: the cuts are the Government's choice, and their choice is to dump the cuts on local communities. I am afraid the Secretary of State and his team have failed to stand up for local councils. Can the Minister tell me how many jobs in the public, private and voluntary sectors will be lost as a result of the Secretary of State's failure?

Grant Shapps: It is really no good not having a plan and then criticising the Government when they come up with a serious plan to rescue this country and this economy from the rocks that we were surely headed towards when the right hon. Lady was on the Government Benches. We have set out our plans in great detail, and we look forward to Her Majesty's Opposition getting round to setting out some of theirs.

New Homes

Mike Freer: What plans he has to introduce incentives to encourage the building of new homes.

Grant Shapps: I am pleased to announce that the new homes bonus will commence in April 2011, which means that local authorities that grant planning permission now will benefit from it next year. I can also announce that the bonus will last a total of six years, facilitating the building of many more homes in every area of the country.

Mike Freer: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he also explain how the new affordable rent scheme will encourage development?

Grant Shapps: Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing, and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable rent, which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable option, and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will go into providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a Government who produced only a 14,000 net gain in affordable homes during a 13-year period in office.
	 [Official Report, 27 October 2010, Vol. 517, c. 5MC.]

Graham Jones: Will the Minister not accept that the new homes bonus scheme is in chaos? Can he explain what the incentive will be for local planning authorities, which according to the policy that the Government have set out will receive only 15% of the receipts, with 85% being returned to the shire authorities outside unitary areas, which are not involved in the planning process? Will the incentive be 15%, or will it be greater?

Grant Shapps: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so confused about this. It is actually a very simple scheme, unlike ones such as the local housing delivery planning grant, which his Government used. That was so complex that literally nobody understood it or had any idea how much money would come in. Our scheme is simple. For every home built, there will be match funding for six years at the actual band price at which it is built. By the way, if it is affordable housing, 125% of receipts will be provided. We will consult on the split between district and upper-tier authorities, but something like 80% is likely to go to the planning authority. That will be a massive incentive for this country to get out and build the homes that Labour failed to build during its 13 years.

Gordon Birtwistle: Can the Minister confirm that housing market renewal pathfinder funding will continue in the short or medium term, to enable the removal of all unwanted and uninhabited properties in the pathfinder areas? The acquisition and removal of those properties will clear inner areas of our towns and cities to enable the new affordable homes that we desperately need.

Grant Shapps: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have visited pathfinder schemes on many occasions, and some were very good and some had some problems. We will complete all the committed HMR schemes, and we will then roll the funding up into the regional development fund to continue the good work.

Alison Seabeck: The Minister can try, but he really should not duck responsibility for his own policies. When he announced this particular scheme in the summer, he told councils, "Build now, develop now, and you'll get substantial benefits in the future." Can he confirm that 70 local authorities have cancelled developments, 160,000 homes have not been built, the house builders are taking the Government to court and his scheme has been kicked into the long grass of 2011? Just how many homes will be built in the next 12 months?

Grant Shapps: May I start by welcoming the new shadow Housing Minister to her post? I hope that she does it for as long as I did-I shadowed many different Front Benchers. In the autumn, she made an interesting statement. She said that too many people thought her Government had not listened to them about housing. The difference is that we will certainly listen, and the new homes bonus will reward all the planning applications that have already been made where homes have yet to be built, so it will include all those homes. It will provide a far more compelling incentive than the local planning housing delivery grant ever did. The Conservative party has a proud record of house building. We have already heard that the previous Government managed a net addition of just 14,000 affordable homes in 13 years.

Non-departmental Bodies (Staff Costs)

David Davies: What progress has been made in publishing the pay and expenses of staff of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

Eric Pickles: My Department has been at the forefront of transparency, and the Department's public bodies will publish their senior salaries and expenses data on Friday 29 October.

David Davies: We know from information that has already been published that the heads of the Audit Commission spent thousands of pounds wining and dining people in a gentleman's club. We also know that the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is chauffeur-driven in his own personal car. May I therefore congratulate the Secretary of State on his actions to ensure that those quango bosses publicise their expenses and salaries, and urge him to do more so that they are held to the same standards of transparency and scrutiny as Members of Parliament, who represent the people?

Eric Pickles: In fairness to the Audit Commission, my hon. Friend will want me to point out that the gentlemen's clubs are those in the west end, not Soho. I have been concerned for some time about some of the Audit Commission's excesses. One of my first decisions was to veto a suggested £240,000 salary for a chief executive. I was not particularly impressed by the chairman's suggestion of a whip-round among members of the private sector that audit to top up his salary. I thought that that suggestion might well have been misinterpreted.

Regional Spatial Strategies

Chris Skidmore: What the timetable is for abolition of regional spatial strategies.

Greg Clark: The previous Government's regional spatial strategies were revoked on 6 July, and the remaining provisions will be repealed through the localism Bill, which will be introduced later this year. Along with the new homes bonus, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government described, it is a key element of our plans to return decisions on housing and planning to local communities, allowing them to shape their neighbourhoods.

Chris Skidmore: Green belt land in my constituency and elsewhere remains under threat as a direct result of the previous Government's regional spatial strategies. What steps will the Government take to ensure greater green belt protection in future?

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the problems of the previous regional spatial strategies was the imposition on local communities. In my hon. Friend's area, the region forced green belt reviews on his community. The same applies to Manchester, Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Woking, Guildford, Harlow and Oxford. That is not the way to proceed. If one wants consent for development, one must involve local people and allow them to determine the character of their area.

Chris Williamson: Yesterday the Prime Minister said it was important to protect economic growth, but actions speak louder than words. Since the Government came to power, local authorities have already ditched plans for 160,000 homes-1,300 every day. Is it not the case that abolishing the regional spatial strategy has paralysed the planning system, forced building workers on to the dole and contributed to slower economic growth?

Greg Clark: The answer is no.
	May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench? He is an ambitious sort. I do not know whether it reflects on the current performance of the Leader of the Opposition, but I note that the hon. Gentleman has registered the website chriswilliamsonlabourleader.com. I do not know whether that is the start of a glorious career here.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to tell the Minister that although that is a fascinating nugget of information, it has nothing to do with regional spatial strategies, on which I know that he will now focus.

Greg Clark: I am glad that you are as fascinated by that as I am, Mr Speaker. If we want a serious discussion, it is important that we change the situation in which all planning applications in this country are seen to destroy quality of life and are fiercely resisted. That is the sad state of things, and we must understand that we need to unblock that. One way to do so is to ensure that communities benefit financially through incentives. The other is to allow local communities to help to specify and design the characters of their local neighbourhoods. If we do that, we can take some of the poison out of the system and have more new homes.

Local Councillors

Philip Davies: If he will take steps to reduce the number of councillors in local authorities headed by an elected mayor.

Eric Pickles: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has a distinct personal interest in the welfare of elected mayors. Decisions on the number of councillors in any local authority are handled by the independent Local Government Boundary Commission, in which process I have no role.

Philip Davies: As the Secretary of State indicated, I should declare that my father is the elected mayor of Doncaster-quite how, nobody knows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be bizarre if his introduction of elected mayors around the country led to an increase in costs and an increased layer of bureaucracy in local government? Therefore, when introducing elected mayors, should he not take the opportunity to reduce the number of councillors in those areas at the same time?

Eric Pickles: It is within the purview of a local authority to ask the Local Government Boundary Commission at any time to review its boundaries and the number of members. Mansfield district council has done that, and is moving from multi-member wards to single- member wards. When the commission publishes its recommendations, they will be laid in the House under the usual 40-day rule.

Diana Johnson: How does the Secretary of State square the imposition of elected mayors in the 12 largest cities in this country with his commitment to localism? How does that work if people will not be asked whether they would like a mayor or whether they wish to continue with local councillors?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is mistaking this Government's position with that of the previous one, who would often impose things on local people. She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.

Standards Board for England

Rehman Chishti: What timetable he has set for the closure of the Standards Board for England.

Eric Pickles: The provisions will be in the localism Bill, and we will move as speedily as possible.

Rehman Chishti: What will replace the board and how will members of the public be able to hold their councils and councillors to account?

Eric Pickles: We have been in discussions with the Local Government Association and we will have a code of conduct, which seems to me to be a sensible way of doing that- [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) seems to think that the boards have achieved something, but their only achievement has been to be petty, silly and pointless.
	The latest example of that concerns a Green party councillor, Jason Kitcat, who placed unofficial video footage of a council meeting on his website. He has been referred to the board for not showing his council respect. With the joyous news of the Lady Thatcher's improving health, perhaps I could say to Councillor Kitcat: "YouTube if you want to."

Housing Development (Consultation)

George Hollingbery: What guidance his Department provides to local authorities planning large housing developments in their area on consultation with residents of neighbouring local authority areas likely to be affected.

Grant Shapps: Local authorities must follow the regulations on preparing their local plans and consult widely with local people affected by proposals. They must also ensure that that public consultation has real meaning and that it is taken into account when putting local plans together.

George Hollingbery: I am grateful for that answer and I should like to push the issue of cross-border co-operation a little further. Under the Government's new homes bonus scheme, it is reasonable to suppose that some local authorities will be tempted to build large settlements at their boundaries, where the disbenefit accrues to local authorities across the boundary. Does the Minister have any plans to ensure that the income flowing from the new homes bonus will flow across local authority boundaries where appropriate?

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. First, we are introducing a duty to co-operate, so that one authority has to be talking to its neighbour in order to get its local plan signed off. Secondly, I can confirm today that the flow of new money from the new homes bonus will be some £900 million, even before top-slicing in the later years, so it will be a significant amount. In that context, there is nothing to prevent one local authority from speaking to its neighbour and saying, "Look, we'd like to build these homes here, but we recognise that this would have some impact on you there. We will come to a deal with you, and if we're both happy it will go into our local plan."

Clive Efford: When a local authority has decided to take the money from the homes bonus, little though it is, at the expense of a neighbouring local authority or in the face of local opposition, whose views will take precedence-the local authority taking the money, local people, or the neighbouring local authority?

Grant Shapps: I am amused that the hon. Gentleman thinks that billions of pounds is little money: it shows how the Opposition thought about taxpayers' money when they were in power. It is a large amount of money and it will make a significant difference. The answer-although I know this is a strange concept to Opposition Members-is something called democracy. It is called asking voters what they want and putting a local plan in place that reflects the local population's wishes, not what the Minister wants here in Whitehall, as happened under the old regional spatial strategies.

David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that his guidance seems to be being ignored by the Planning Inspectorate, which is insisting on making the five-year housing supply paramount in its decisions, causing great concern in Burbage and Groby in my constituency as representations are made and ignored?

Grant Shapps: It is enormously important that the Planning Inspectorate notices that there has been a change of Government and therefore changes in policy. If it is not entirely certain, we will have the localism Bill next month and I hope that that will clarify the matter once and for all.

Small Businesses

Russell Brown: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the effect on levels of employment in small businesses of reductions in his Department's funding to local government.

Andrew Stunell: The Secretary of State has had discussions on a number of topics with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. We are aware of the need to offer continued support to small businesses in this difficult economic climate. That is why we are committed to providing local authorities with the freedom to determine how best to allocate their resources to meet local priorities.

Russell Brown: In many areas, the local authority is far and away the largest employer and as a result many small and medium enterprises depend heavily on it for contracts and to keep their businesses going. The tightening up that we will see will therefore inevitably lead to small businesses suffering as a result of what has happened in the last 24 hours.

Andrew Stunell: I certainly agree with the first two thirds of what the hon. Gentleman says, but his conclusion is wrong. In the Secretary of State's conversations with colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, they drew our attention-as did the Chancellor-to the small business rate relief, which gives 100% relief for properties, up to £6,000. There is also the holiday on national insurance contributions for the first three years of start-up companies, and this Department is responsible for the local enterprise partnerships, on which we are working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses to ensure that they can play an effective part.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large proportion of our housing programme, which will spend £6.5 billion, will of course involve the small construction sector. Our regional growth fund of £1.4 billion will also contribute. We are working hard to ensure that councils understand their role in procurement and delivery of services to ensure that small companies and the voluntary and community sector can be involved. If he asks the question-

Mr Speaker: Order. The comprehensiveness of the Minister's answer is equalled only by its length. We need snappier answers from now on.

John Pugh: Does the reduction of 7% for four years in local government funding include the 3% efficiency target proposed by the previous Government, or does it exclude it?

Andrew Stunell: The figures announced yesterday were in relation to a base that was set by the outgoing Labour Government. I do not know whether that is the complete answer my hon. Friend wants, but I am happy to write to him further if he needs me to.

David Blunkett: PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that on the back of the cuts announced yesterday, 82,000 jobs will go in Yorkshire. Could the Minister describe the mechanism to avoid a further double whammy for the city of Sheffield-its individuals, businesses and communities-from the 26% reduction in the overall grant to the city over the next four years and the 18% reduction in the area-based grant, which is theoretically being un-ring-fenced, but which will actually not exist at all unless there is a mechanism to retain it in the communities that were receiving it?

Andrew Stunell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but would remind him that the economy has shrunk by 6%, and that was before the general election. Many, many people in the private and public sectors have already faced the devastating consequences of that. We are setting that right.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that there will be many opportunities for economic development in York and North Yorkshire, which have suffered owing to the mass investment in places such as Boeing in Sheffield, under the local economic partnerships?

Andrew Stunell: I hope that each local economic partnership will be a focus for growth, jobs and development. Obviously there is competition, but we need every part of the country to grow quickly, to get back to the level of prosperity that we should have.

Jack Dromey: Small businesses all over Britain depend on £20 billion of local government procurement. PWC has predicted 500,000 job losses in the private sector, with 100,000 in the construction industry and 180,000 job losses in business services. Does the Minister therefore not agree that it is an abrogation of the Government's responsibility to have failed to conduct an impact assessment study of the effect of their actions in the public sector on the private sector, thereby avoiding coming clean? Does he also agree that the evidence is clear: for every job that goes in local government, at least one will go in Britain's small businesses?

Andrew Stunell: Let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role, and say that I would have thought that, with his background, he would be the last person to put a lot of dependence on a private consultant's report about what was going to happen next. From our point of view, we think that we have got the right remedy for Britain's ills, and I believe that in a year's time he will agree with us.

Big Society Vanguard Communities

Rory Stewart: What progress has been made in establishing projects in the big society vanguard communities.

Greg Clark: Good progress is being made on removing barriers to local action in the vanguard areas. In my hon. Friend's constituency, we are working with the local community in the Eden valley on the roll-out of next-generation broadband, on advancing neighbourhood planning and on devolving budgets to communities. Similar progress is being made in the other areas, as part of my commitment to put my civil servants, in my Department, at the service of communities across Britain.

Rory Stewart: I thank the Minister for the work that his team is doing to support the Eden communities and the councils, and for the real progress on broadband. What lessons and experience can we take from Eden and apply to other parts of the country?

Greg Clark: Let me pay tribute to the leadership that my hon. Friend has given during his six months in this House, and extend an invitation to other hon. Members across the House, who are leaders in their communities. I have made an offer: if we believe, as I do, that the best ideas come from people in communities, rather than just from senior officials in Whitehall, then we need to make the resources of the Department available to people in communities. I extend this invitation to all hon. Members: if they have good ideas that are facing barriers that need busting, let us know and we will help.

Malcolm Wicks: Given that one of the building blocks of the big society, which I believe in, is the voluntary sector, will the Minister comment on the decision by Croydon council to axe the grants to more than 20 voluntary organisations? Those organisations form the great majority of those that the council has been funding, and they include the Croydon rape and sexual abuse support centre. Does he agree that if the same thing happens nationwide, that will not be about building the good society-or, if he prefers, the big society-but will put us on a slippery slope towards a painful and bad society?

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman and I agree, I think, that it is highly desirable that we should transfer power from the centre to local communities, and that involves councils, too. I do not expect them to pull up the drawbridge in the town hall when we decentralise power and resources to them. I look to councils to increase their contacts with the voluntary sector as part of the decentralisation initiative, which affects everyone.

Barbara Keeley: There are
	"real fears that spending cuts will impact adversely on the capacity of the charitable and not-for-profit sector. Far from taking on more... it may be able to do rather less."
	That comment on the big society was from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. Can the Minister tell the House just how he expects expansion in a sector that will suffer loss of grants and support-as we have heard, it is already happening-due to the 28% budget cuts over the next four years that this Government have forced on to local councils?

Greg Clark: May I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box? She has long experience in local government, which I know takes these issues very seriously. One thing that councils and central Government have had the chance to do in the past is to hold on to power and to avoid bringing in the voluntary sector as of right. I think we need to change that. The hon. Lady will see that, in the localism Bill, we are going to entrench rights for community groups to take over some of the services of local authorities if they can demonstrate that they can have a more effective outcome. Rights, I think, rather than discretion, is the best source of guarantees for the sector.

Planning System

Richard Graham: What steps he has taken to reduce the burden of administration in the planning system.

Bob Neill: Reducing and minimising burdens in the planning system is essential if the system is to work effectively and if we are to remove a financial burden on the economy, which has been estimated in figures quoted in the Killian Pretty report as being up to £2.7 billion a year. That therefore forms a central part of the Government's reform proposals in the localism and decentralisation Bill and the national planning framework. We have already taken specific steps, with which I would be happy to acquaint the House in more detail if time permitted-for example, by consolidating 17 regulations into one and three preservation orders into one, saving £1.5 million already.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The £400 million redevelopment project in the Gloucester Quays in my constituency was unnecessarily delayed for more than a year as a result of being called in by the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that local planning decisions are now precisely that, that they will no longer be subject to frequent interference by the Government and that today we can send a clear message to developers and investors-in Gloucester and elsewhere-that we are open for business without delay?

Mr Speaker: Briefer this time.

Bob Neill: Localising decision making and planning is central to the Government's policy. Ministers have made it clear that they will exercise the power to call in only very sparingly where matters of significant national interest and policy are concerned.

Clive Betts: Is the Minister aware that in looking at the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, the Select Committee is receiving evidence that because those strategies had an evidential base-not merely in respect of house building numbers, but in many other matters on which local development frameworks were based-many local authorities are now having to go back and redo that evidential base at a local level, causing an enormous amount of work and inconvenience to them? Did the Minister take account of those extra burdens when he decided to abolish the regional spatial strategies?

Bob Neill: The vast majority of local authorities I have spoken to greatly welcome the abolition of those strategies, which imposed undemocratic targets on them. There is no need to rework the evidence base-it is already there. We have given local authorities the power to revise the figures that were arbitrarily imposed on them from above.

Sustainable Development

John Glen: What steps his Department is taking to encourage locally supported sustainable development through the planning system.

Greg Clark: The coalition programme for government included a commitment to a radical reform of the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their residents live. Our proposals to decentralise planning back to neighbourhoods will be set out in the localism Bill, which will be published shortly.

John Glen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Following recent discussions in my Salisbury constituency, particularly with individuals in Winterslow who have created parish plans, will the Minister comment on the role parish plans will play in influencing sustainable development in the planning process?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. I think neighbourhoods, parish councils and town councils, which intimately understand their areas, have been cut out of the planning process for too long. We will introduce rights in the localism Bill for neighbourhood plans to have statutory force so that people can actually have a say in how their communities develop.

Alison McGovern: Bromborough Dock landfill site in my constituency desperately needs sustainable development. The Forestry Commission had a plan to turn it into a publicly accessible park, but that plan has now been withdrawn, following the abolition of the Northwest Regional Development Agency. What advice can the Minister give me about how to turn this former industrial site into a beautiful green riverside park, given the actions of his Government?

Greg Clark: I am very happy to take forward the hon. Lady's suggestion, and I will follow it up after this. I will make my team of civil servants available to her, to see whether we can help her with any barriers that might be preventing that from happening.

Small Business Rate Relief

Mark Lancaster: What progress he has made on his proposals for the future of small business rate relief; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Neill: The coalition agreement contained a commitment to find a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic. We have had discussions with interested parties, and we are now assessing the options.

Mark Lancaster: Milton Keynes is a dynamic and entrepreneurial city, and the Government's moves on small business rate relief are most welcome, but will the Minister tell the House what more the Government could do to encourage local councils to be more flexible in offering different incentives to new businesses?

Bob Neill: We are considering the possibility of giving local authorities wide-ranging discretionary powers to grant business rate discounts, so that they can respond to local circumstances by reducing local businesses' bills. We are also taking legislation to ensure that no new supplementary business rate can be imposed without the backing of local firms in a referendum.

Community Assets

Stella Creasy: What plans he has for future funding to facilitate community management and ownership of local community assets; and if he will make a statement.

Greg Clark: The Government will be making it much easier for communities to take on community assets, through the community right-to-buy provisions in the localism Bill. Following the spending review statement yesterday, we will shortly be announcing our plans to provide further funding to support communities in exercising that right. Communities can now get advice and practical help from the Government-funded asset transfer unit, and money is available this year through Communitybuilders for business development support and investment capital.

Stella Creasy: Residents living near the former St James street library in Walthamstow want to be part of the big society by buying the building and turning it into a community centre. The previous Government committed £20 million to an empowerment fund to help local people to make these things happen. Rights and announcements are all very well, but what actual funding can residents in my area expect to be able to bid for, to help to turn the rhetoric surrounding asset management into a reality?

Greg Clark: I know that the hon. Lady is a great champion for community facilities. She has had correspondence with me on this matter, and as a Co-operative party MP, she shares our belief that co-operatives have a great deal to offer. Perhaps I should refer to her as my hon. Friend in this context. The big society bank, which was announced by the Chancellor yesterday, will be expressly designed so that part of its purpose will be to make capital available, and I hope that her project will make one of the early applications to it.

Directly Elected Mayors

Mary Glindon: What representations he has received on his proposals to establish directly elected mayors in 12 cities in England.

Eric Pickles: We have received many communications from various people who are interested in mayors, and it is our intention to introduce 12 mayors. We will also be introducing additional powers. I think the problem with mayors in the past is that they have been just another politician-[Hon. Members: "Boris!"] But as Boris Johnson has demonstrated in London, with passion and with power one can transform the post.

Mary Glindon: We have had elected mayors in North Tyneside for more than eight years, and our most effective one was Mr John Harrison, who was the Labour mayor for four years. He did so much to progress the area, but, unfortunately, we now have a Conservative mayor. Regarding the proposal for 12 elected mayors, one of the Local Government Ministers has said that they will be chosen from among council leaders, with a referendum to follow afterwards. Should not they be chosen in an election, as the coalition agreement states?

Eric Pickles: I have to say that Linda Arkley is doing a fantastic job as the Conservative mayor, and a very effective one, too. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have paid a little more attention to the earlier question, when I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum. It was the Labour party that imposed forms of government on local government without consultation and without listening. This Government have learned the lesson; we will follow the will of the people.

David Ward: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in regard to the localism agenda, there might be case for arguing that the imposition of a referendum on elected mayors is as bad as the imposition of elected mayors themselves?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend, whom I have known for the best part of 30 years, is sometimes a stranger to democracy. I know that democracy is an inconvenience, but I do not think it that it will do any harm to consult the people of Bradford.

Local Community Groups

Nicola Blackwood: What steps he is taking to reduce the regulatory requirements his Department places on local community groups.

Greg Clark: I am determined to make it easier for local community groups to thrive. There are three ways in which we can help. First, there is a determination across Government to remove unnecessary burdens. Lord Young of Graffham is reducing the burden of health and safety legislation, while Lord Hodgson is tasked with reducing burdens on voluntary groups and will report in 2011. Secondly, as I said earlier, I have established a team in my Department to help local communities directly to get rid of barriers that stand in their way. Thirdly, I look to local government to avoid being over-prescriptive when issuing contracts to voluntary organisations.

Nicola Blackwood: My constituency contains many dedicated volunteers, but many others are put off by the intrusive system of multiple Criminal Records Bureau checks. One deputy head, who had been checked for his school, was unable to accompany his own students in a cub activity unless he obtained another CRB check from the scouting organisation. While I share the House's commitment to child protection, as deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary scout group I also feel deeply frustrated by bureaucratic barriers of that sort. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that we support volunteerism rather than stifling it?

Greg Clark: That is a brilliant question, and my hon. Friend has a fantastic track record of social action.
	Although scouting is more popular than ever before and more teenagers are joining the movement than ever before, the waiting list is at a record level because there are not enough volunteers to catch up with it. CRB checks are an important aspect of that, and the Home Office is reviewing the vetting and barring arrangements. In response to a suggestion made by a member of the public through the "spending challenge" process, we will make it possible for relevant organisations to share CRB checks.

Topical Questions

Julian Sturdy: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: The Department has been concerned with the spending review. It is essential for us to bring down the budget deficit, drive economic growth, and pull Britain together.
	The Department has also had an opportunity to decentralise power and promote fairness in our society. We are committed to a £6.5 billion affordable housing and decent housing regime; we are tackling the pressure on social services by providing an additional £2 billion in support for adult social care; we are helping the vulnerable with the £6.5 billion Supporting People programme; we are giving councils unprecedented flexibility by ending ring-fencing; and we are folding £7 billion into formula grant.

Julian Sturdy: Can the Minister outline the powers invested in local authorities to restrict the spread of houses in multiple occupation in areas where large numbers of such houses are causing concern to local communities?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are instances in which HMOs cause problems for local communities. Indeed, it happens in my own constituency.
	On their last day in office, the last Government introduced a blanket authority requiring HMO planning permission to be obtained everywhere in the country before the use of a property could be changed. On 1 October, we altered the arrangement to ensure that it could be zoned as and where a local authority needed it to be.

Diana Johnson: In the light of the 60% cuts in the social housing budget that were announced yesterday, will one of the Ministers tell me whether the private finance initiative scheme in Orchard Park and the stock transfer in Bransholme will go ahead?

Grant Shapps: Now that the spending review is out of the way, we shall be able to announce which PFI projects will be able to continue.

Duncan Hames: Council tax payers in my constituency have been dismayed by golden goodbyes for council bosses since the move to one council for Wiltshire. Just four staff shared nearly £2 million in remuneration in their final 12 months in post. Will the Secretary of State bring into line the Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) Regulations 2006, which have made that scandal possible?

Eric Pickles: This has been a more than unfortunate feature of local government for a long time. We have seen chief executives move from one authority and receive a very generous farewell, only to join another authority. It is completely unacceptable. If local authorities do not deal with the position themselves, the Government will be left with no alternative but to take the necessary action. However, I believe that allowing an entire council, rather than a tiny, cosy elite, to decide such matters on the floor of the chamber will make a difference.

Chuka Umunna: Last week, the Government announced that in London the responsibilities of the Homes and Communities Agency would be passed to the Mayor. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that this decision is not being used as a ruse to deprive London of much-needed investment in affordable housing? What extra funding will the Mayor of London get to enable him to fulfil these new responsibilities?

Grant Shapps: We think that, in line with localism, it is very important that money goes directly to the place where it is required. The way in which the Homes and Communities Agency operated in London was a great example of how not to do it, because we ended up with the chief executive of the national HCA, a London chief executive for the HCA and the elected Mayor having to work almost against each other. There is no point in that, because we can simplify things by having the money go direct. The amount of funding will now be resolved, with the spending review out of the way.

Peter Bone: The abolition of the Standards Board for England is greatly welcomed across the country, but it will have to be in the local government Bill. At the moment, there is a rush of new complaints, many of which are frivolous and malicious. Is there any way in which those can be stopped now, by stopping referrals to the Standards Board for England?

Eric Pickles: In fairness to the standards boards, they are trying to take away some of the more frivolous and silly complaints, the lowest level of which was the complaint that Ken Livingstone had been rude to a journalist-the very thought sends shivers to my spine, of course. Even if Ken had been a little emotional that night, the right decision is for the people to decide; it is for the electors to decide, not a quango. That entire investigation cost £200,000 and it was utterly pointless. I am doing my bit by taking substantial sums away from the standards boards.

Liz Kendall: Has the Minister assessed how the 28% cut in local authority funding over four years will affect women, who are more likely to use and work for local authority services?

Eric Pickles: We will of course be making a full assessment. I say to the hon. Lady that the correct figure is 26% and that if we had not taken this decision, we would be facing savage and uncontrolled cuts in local authorities, because of the Labour party's failure. We have a plan-the Labour party does not.

Neil Carmichael: As we all know, the previous Labour Government managed to build only 14,000 new social houses during their entire period.  [Interruption.] Oh yes it is true.

Hon. Members: Oh not it's not.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to spit it out.

Neil Carmichael: My question is: how will the measures that we announced yesterday help to ensure more supply and enable people to get on a waiting list that has some meaning and where there is some chance of their getting a house?

Eric Pickles: The reaction of those on the Labour Benches clearly demonstrates that the previous policy was indeed a pantomime. We are determined to break through the hypocrisy that exists on social housing. In order to halve the existing waiting list, we would have had to spend about £50 billion. The Labour party produced a scheme that did not work. Ours goes with the natural flow of the housing market, and I am pleased to see chief officers of housing associations welcoming it and welcoming the flexibility. We will be able to implement many of the plans that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) so gallantly pioneered, only to be stopped by the previous Prime Minister.

Tom Blenkinsop: According to Allister Hayman of the  Local Government Chronicle, regional development agency network liabilities have reached £1.5 billion pounds and could rise as high as £2.5 billion. The Government plan a freeze on RDA spending beyond March 2011, which includes match funding, so how will this funding gap on Department for Communities and Local Government programmes partnered by the eight RDAs be met? Will the Government's new local enterprise partnerships be adequately funded when they begin?

Eric Pickles: We are clearly examining the commitments made by RDAs. I express a high degree of disappointment that in the purdah period between the change of Government a number of contracts were entered into inappropriately. We will be doing our best to sort out that mess and see that the assets are returned to the new local enterprise partnerships. I must say that I am very disappointed at the irresponsible attitude that some RDAs displayed during that period.

Brandon Lewis: We have just heard about RDAs, and it is great news to me that we are moving towards local enterprise partnerships. People across Norfolk have come together-businesses, small businesses, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chamber of commerce, some big organisations, local authorities and the university-to put together a bid just for Norfolk. Does the Minister agree that this is a much better way to true localism, which enables us to see local economies grow, and will he look sympathetically at the Norfolk bid for a LEP?

Greg Clark: I will certainly look sympathetically at it, although I cannot pre-empt the conclusions of the review. I think the process of inviting bids between business, local authorities, universities and the voluntary sector for LEPs has resulted, as Members will see shortly, in a fantastic set of proposals that will give energy and dynamism to the regeneration of some of the communities that need it most.

Dennis Skinner: Last year, the Minister for Housing in the Labour Government allocated money to replace more than 100 council pre-fabs because the foundations were collapsing. Earlier this year, this Government decided to stop that money even though it had been allocated. All those pensioners and disabled people are waiting for those new homes. In this brave new world of £6.5 billion, can I get on the phone to Bolsover district council now and tell them that the Tarran bungalows are to be replaced?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that out of the £6.5 billion of money going to social housing, £2.1 billion is going to continue with the decent homes programme. I can also give him a further undertaking: we will ensure that, unlike my immediate predecessor, I do not raid that budget-as he did last July-to take some of the money and put it into a re-announced announcement elsewhere in the budget.

Dennis Skinner: So the answer is no, then, is it?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Laura Sandys: How will the Department impress on local authorities the need to commission as many of their services as possible from the voluntary sector, small business and community groups seriously to deliver more cost-effective, creative and innovative services at the front line?

Greg Clark: That is a very good question from my hon. Friend. It is important, as I said earlier, that we do not centralise in the town hall at a time when we are decentralising from the Government. In fact, the chief executive of the voluntary organisations' umbrella body said that he was highly encouraged by our proposals to entrench these rights for community groups to receive funding from local authorities.

David Lammy: May I ask the Secretary of State, on the invitation of Haringey council, whether he would come to Tottenham and spend an evening in one of my estates? There is now real concern about homelessness in Haringey with the cut to housing benefit, the desire to take social housing rents to the same level as those in the private sector and the cut of 28% to local authority grants. Will he come to Tottenham and spend an evening with the community?

Grant Shapps: The question relates to the problem of homelessness, which is close to my heart. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is £12.25 million, much of which will go to London authorities, to help with transition. I know that he has 4,500 non-decent homes left within his arm's length management organisation stock that the new £2.1 billion will assist. On behalf of the Secretary of State, I shall be happy personally to accept his invitation and come and spend an evening in the estates with him. I look forward to it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate a few more questions, they must be very brief, and so must the answers.

Bob Russell: Because it is both topical and urgent, I ask the Minister to refer back to question 5. Local authorities are not necessarily taking any notice of what the coalition Government Ministers are saying in their pronouncements, particularly in the case of officers at Colchester borough council. Will he therefore visit Myland parish council in Colchester to see the absurd proposals that are going forward there?

Eric Pickles: If we are organising trips around the country, the least I can do is come and see my hon. Friend in Colchester.

Nick Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that house prices will rise or fall over the next six months? If they fall, would he see that as a good thing or a bad thing?

Grant Shapps: House prices will fluctuate.  [Interruption.] It is obvious. We do not want to see house prices doubling in a period of just 10 years as happened under the last Labour Government, locking generations out of being able to get a foot on the housing ladder. This Government want to help people on to the housing ladder, not exclude them.

Christopher Pincher: Last Friday, local volunteer groups in conjunction with Tamworth borough council launched the Tamworth community action network, which enables local volunteers to use council office space to provide volunteer services and recruit more volunteers. Will Ministers commend this local initiative, and will they consider visiting when time allows?

Andrew Stunell: I think that is the third invitation to Ministers to visit Members' constituencies in this set of topical questions. The hon. Gentleman has referred to an excellent project. It is an exemplar that we are keen to see replicated elsewhere, and I look forward to visiting it.

Heidi Alexander: Yesterday we heard about the supposedly extra money that councils will get to meet the care needs of the elderly and disabled. How much is that sum of money compared with the total overall cuts faced by local government? I am concerned that what is being given with one hand is being taken away with the other.

Eric Pickles: That is an outrageous suggestion. For years upon years I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box demanding that the money be released from the health authority to local authorities to deal with this. We have done that; the hon. Lady should be saying thank you.

Esther McVey: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the plan set out by Wirral council under its leader Jeff Green to tackle the debt left in the council by the previous, Labour, administration, first through introducing transparency by publishing all expenditure over £500 and, secondly, through a wide consultation with all the Wirral public?

Bob Neill: I recently visited Wirral and met Councillor Green, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the council is using a number of innovative measures not only in the transparency agenda, but in the imaginative use of community facilities such as fire stations working conjointly with youth groups in the big society.

John Cryer: Will the Liberal Minister now answer the question that has already been asked twice during this question time? What is his assessment of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report about extensive job losses in the private sector?

Andrew Stunell: My assessment is that, like a lot of reporting of what the coalition agreement and the comprehensive spending review are about, it is purely speculative. What we have actually got is a programme for growth in the private sector and in small businesses, and we are putting the British economy back on its feet.

Robert Halfon: Is the Secretary of State aware that hard-pressed taxpayers in Harlow and elsewhere are paying the East of England Development Agency chief executive a higher salary than the Prime Minister? When the Secretary of State gets rid of this unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, will he ensure that the new local enterprise partnerships no longer waste taxpayers' money in this way?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely, and I will certainly be willing to go to the chief executive's leaving party.

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister agree that changes to housing benefit, secure tenancies and the raising of rents will take us back to the "Cathy Come Home" era?

Grant Shapps: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady and I will tell her this. The last Government used to claim there were just 440 people sleeping on our streets. That is not true. When we came into office we conducted a proper count, and the right figure is 1,247. Hiding the problem is not solving it; this Government are protecting the most vulnerable in society, and that includes the homeless.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 25 October will be as follows:
	Monday 25 October-Proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 5).
	Tuesday 26 October-Second Reading of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill.
	Wednesday 27 October-Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
	Thursday 28 October-General debate on the comprehensive spending review.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 1 November will include:
	Monday 1 November-Remaining stages of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 1).
	Tuesday 2 November- Remaining stages of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Day 2).
	Wednesday 3 November-General debate on the report of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
	Thursday 4 November-General debate on the strategic defence and security review.
	Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the February recess on Thursday 17 February 2011 and return on Monday 28 February 2011. The House will rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 5 April 2011 and return on Tuesday 26 April 2011. The House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Tuesday 24 May 2011 and return on Tuesday 7 June 2011. The House will rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 19 July 2011 and return on Monday 5 September 2011. The House will rise for the conference recess on Thursday 15 September 2011 and return on Monday 10 October 2011. The House will rise for the Christmas recess on Tuesday 20 December 2011 and return on Tuesday 10 January 2012.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4 November will be:
	Thursday 4 November-Impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department for Work and Pensions.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and the recess dates, but when will we know the dates for the rest of the Session?
	Last week I raised with the Leader of the House the fact that major Government announcements were appearing in newspapers before they were made to the House. This week-one of profound importance for the country-we find that exactly the same thing has happened again. Details of Tuesday's strategic defence and security review were in the newspapers over several days leading up to it. In other words, journalists got lots of advance information, whereas the Leader of the Opposition got the Prime Minister's statement only 15 minutes before it was made, and in recent days much of the comprehensive spending review has been leaked before the Chancellor got around to telling us about it yesterday.
	It seems pretty clear now that Ministers believe that those who report on Parliament are much more important than those who are actually Members of Parliament. It has got so bad that the Conservative former parliamentary candidate and blogger Iain Dale has urged you, Mr Speaker, to take the Government to the cleaners over what has been going on. I wonder, therefore, whether the Leader of the House has plans to clean up this mess. He did not explain last week, but perhaps he can do so now.
	On the rights of Members, and following our exchanges last week about the amount of time we will have to debate the CSR, will the Leader of the House now recognise that one day for debate is simply not enough, and that denying the House the opportunity to vote on what is a reckless gamble is simply not good enough either? Will he find more time so that we can debate why Ministers, who have just got jobs, were cheering at the end of yesterday's statement when other people are about to lose their jobs? Will he also find time to debate the inability of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on television yesterday to explain why the poorest 10% in society will be forced to pay more to reduce the deficit than almost anybody else, when his boss claims that the spending review is anchored in fairness? If the Chief Secretary cannot manage to find the words, perhaps he could walk into the Chamber carrying his briefing folder so that we can take a photograph of it and put a copy in the Library.
	Will the Leader of the House find more time so that we can debate why families with children will have to pay more than twice the amount that the banks, which caused the problem, are being asked to contribute? And how exactly will making nearly 500,000 people in the public sector lose their jobs help the economy to recover and create new jobs?
	All of this will require time, especially given that we know from last summer's emergency budget that the truth has a habit of seeping out once the fine print starts to be examined. So can the Leader of the House now give the House the assurance it is looking for from him that Members will have the chance to debate the CSR properly, and to vote on it?
	Finally, this week we have been debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on the Floor of the House. On Monday about 100 pages of amendments were tabled. We are now told that there will be a number of statutory instruments to allow for a combination of polls, with even further amendments to follow. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) told the House:
	"I am very keen that on matters to do with elections this House should get to pronounce before the Bill goes to the other place...we will seek to achieve that."-[ Official Report, 18 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 653.]
	As far as I can see, the only way to do this is to reschedule either the fifth day of the Committee stage or the remaining stages that the Leader of the House has outlined this morning. Otherwise the House, which has already been unable to discuss very important parts of the Bill because of the speed at which it is being rammed through, will not be able to consider the amendments before they go to the other place, and the Minister's pledge will not have been met. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on this matter?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I have already announced the dates of the Christmas recess, so I am not quite sure which further dates in this Session he was asking about.
	May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's question about a second day for debate on the CSR? The last time this House heard a comprehensive spending review was in 2007, under the Government of whom he was a member. All we had then was a statement, and-at a time when the Government were in total control of the parliamentary timetable-there was no debate whatever. Indeed, so badly did the previous Government behave that the Liaison Committee said about their performance:
	"It is absurd that the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review was discussed for only an hour and a half in the Chamber, and makes a mockery of the House's right to scrutinise government expenditure."
	That is what happened last time there was a CSR.
	In the meantime we have had the Wright Committee report, which recommended transferring to the Backbench Business Committee responsibility for fixing debates, and made it absolutely clear that debates on spending reviews were a matter for the House, not for the Government. Notwithstanding that, the Government have found a day out of their own time to debate the CSR, and that is what we will do next Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman may want to restore his party's reputation on the matter, and when the Opposition are given an Opposition day, which I hope to announce quite soon, it will be perfectly open to them to use that day for a second day of debate on the CSR.
	The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about the leaks. I was slightly surprised to hear Opposition Members having the chutzpah to complain about leaks and pre-briefing, when for 13 years this House was deliberately and systematically sidelined by professional spinners and manipulators in No. 10. I listened to the Chancellor's statement, and the reason why my colleagues waved their Order Papers was that it was an outstanding parliamentary performance. When the shadow Chancellor sat down, he did not get the same response from his Back Benchers.
	On the question of leaks, I listened to the CSR statement, and the vast majority of the CSR was announced first to the House, including the housing benefit reforms, the child benefit changes and the replacement of the education maintenance allowance. But, as with any major announcement, there is inevitably speculation in the press and in the media, and hon. Members should not believe everything that they read in the press. For example, I read that the cold weather payments were going to be abolished, and they were not.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there is some pressure on time, so I appeal, as always, for single, short supplementary questions and, of course, to the Leader of the House to exercise his characteristic pithiness in reply.

Priti Patel: On the eve of European health and safety week, is the Leader of the House aware of the excessive bureaucracy that Essex county council highways department has imposed upon the village of Coggeshall in my constituency just to put up its village Christmas tree and lights? Can he please reassure my constituents that he will work across Government to ensure that the over-zealous bureaucrats at the highways department do not kill Christmas in Coggeshall?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. But first, I should have answered the question that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked about the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I must say that if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) did not speak for quite so long-he spoke twice for 50 minutes-we would have more time to reach other parts of the Bill. We have allowed five days for Committee, which is a generous allocation, but it is up to the House to respond intelligently to the extra time that we have allocated.
	On the specific issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I am aware of the discussions that took place, and the Minister said that the Government would seek to ensure that amendments to the Bill following the territorial elections statutory instruments would be made in this House. On 18 October we tabled an amendment to the Bill providing for a combination of the referendum with other elections in order to allow the issue to be debated in Committee, and we expect the territorial orders to be laid before Report. We will then make any necessary further amendments to the combination provisions.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that we are in favour of Christmas; indeed, we are in favour of Christmas at Coggeshall. My noble Friend Lord Young-no relation-has published his report, "Common Sense, Common Safety", and we are committed to that. We need some proportionality in all such matters, and Lord Young has recommended that officials who ban events on the grounds of health and safety should put their reasons in writing, and that citizens should have a right to challenge such decisions. If my hon. Friend gives me further details of the incident to which she has referred, I shall take it up with the appropriate Department.

Frank Doran: My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House referred to the many amendments tabled to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, of which some relate to Scotland. Will the Leader of the House say whether consultations with the Scottish Government have taken place? Will he also let the House know whether a Sewel motion relating to the legislation is needed? It would need to be considered by the Scottish Parliament before issues are discussed in this House.

George Young: My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is taking an active part in proceedings on the Bill, has noted the hon. Gentleman's point. To answer his first question-yes, there were consultations and discussions with the Scottish Parliament in relation to those provisions of the Bill.

Robert Smith: The Government made clear yesterday their desire to see the private sector grow, increase employment and rebuild the economy. My constituency has the world centre of excellence for subsea engineering that supports the global oil and gas industry-an industry that needs to meet contracts at short notice anywhere in the world. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement to reassure investors in that industry that they will be able to continue to locate in this country, and still be able to move key skilled people in and out of this country at short notice?

George Young: I understand the importance of that industry to those who work in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will raise with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration the question of the cap on non-EU work permits, if that is the specific issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) is raising. There will be a further opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House at Home Office questions on 18 November.

Owen Smith: May I return to the important constitutional matters in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that there has not been time to debate on the Floor of the House? One of them relates to Wales. The main clauses relating to Wales were debated yesterday, but we did not get to the critical clause-clause 11, which relates specifically to the National Assembly-although the Secretary of State for Wales stated in a letter to all Welsh Members that that clause would be debated. Indeed, that was the very reason why she denied our request for a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Wales on the pressing need to reinstate the Welsh Grand Committee, so that we can debate that critical matter for the people of Wales?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot accede to that request. When I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate yesterday, Wales was being discussed most of the time, so the notion that it has not been possible to discuss matters relating to Wales simply does not stand up. There will be opportunities on Report to debate the parts of the Bill that were not reached in Committee-but I have to say that if hon. Members want to reach the necessary clauses they should exert some self-discipline, and not speak interminably on certain matters so that key parts of the Bill are not reached.

David Ruffley: Mrs Jan Berry, the independent Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing Advocate, has recently reported that it takes up to 10 police officers to investigate a single burglary. Constituents of mine in Bury St Edmunds, and Stowmarket in particular, are fed up with antisocial behaviour and want to see more police on the streets, not behind their desks. Given that, will my right hon. Friend allow an urgent, and in my opinion long overdue, debate on slashing police red tape?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and agree entirely with what he says. Jan Berry has indeed produced a report, and we are grateful to her for her work on identifying some of the root causes of the sort of red tape that stops officers getting out on the streets, where people want to see them. Police officers should be crime fighters, not form writers, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is determined to reduce bureaucracy and improve efficiency, so that resources are not wasted and can reach the front line.

Natascha Engel: The Leader of the House announced earlier that the subject for debate in Westminster Hall selected by the Backbench Business Committee is the effect of the CSR on the Department for Work and Pensions. May I take this opportunity to remind right hon. and hon. Members that the next open public session for representations to the Backbench Business Committee is next Monday at 5 pm in Committee Room 15, when we will welcome bids for debates on the CSR and its impact on different Departments? May I also invite the Leader of the House to attend the sitting and witness that innovation for himself?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will be attending her salon next Monday to see how this important innovation in how the House works operates in practice. She makes a serious point: the Chamber is not the only forum in which the Government can be held to account. There is also Westminster Hall, and there are the Select Committees. We need to put the debate on the CSR in that broader context, looking at all the opportunities to hold the Government to account.

Greg Mulholland: On 1 October the Government reversed the planned changes to legislation on houses in multiple occupation without giving Members a chance to debate the changes. As 92% of respondents to last year's consultation said that there should be change, will the Leader of the House ensure that Members on both sides of the House have the chance to debate this important matter?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. My recollection, as a former Housing Minister, is that with HMOs over a certain size there is an obligation for the local authority to inspect and licence them. With HMOs below that size, the local authority has all the powers it needs to intervene on a discretionary basis if it thinks that is right. However, I shall raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will know of the interest in and passionate support for Sure Start children's centres that I and many other hon. Members have. Many of us feel betrayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks yesterday that there will be savage cuts to those children's centres in this country. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that issue, and when can we debate it?

George Young: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the CSR statement that there would be a steady cash settlement for the Sure Start programme, and that there would not be any cash reductions.

Harriett Baldwin: Mr Speaker, you were kind enough to grant me a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on the regulation of independent financial advisers, which was extremely well attended by colleagues and generated an enormous amount of interest nationally. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the important topic of the regulation of the Financial Services Authority, and its performance against statutory objectives?

George Young: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-attended debate yesterday. The Government will be introducing legislation to reform the FSA, as she knows, and that will provide the House with an opportunity to debate the issues she has touched on.

Paul Flynn: In the first five years of the Afghan war, only two British soldiers died in conflict. As a consequence of the incursion into Helmand province that figure is now 341. When can we debate the report of the Public Administration Committee that shows the appallingly trivial reasons why that decision was taken, which proves that the incursion into Helmand was a blunder on the scale of the charge of the Light Brigade, but with three times as many British deaths?

George Young: Obviously, I regret any loss of life in Afghanistan. I believe that the House debated this issue, on a motion tabled by the Backbench Business Committee, in September. The new Government will respond formally in due course to the Select Committee report, which welcomed their aspirations to think more strategically through the National Security Council.

David Burrowes: The killer of my constituent's sister is due to be released at weekends, despite having been sentenced barely 12 months ago to eight years for manslaughter. Can we have a debate to ensure that the Government's drive for greater honesty in sentencing covers the decisions of judges, the Parole Board and prison governors, and also encompasses offences of homicide, because the families of victims often feel let down, shut out and deceived by the criminal justice system?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and my sympathies go first and foremost to the victim's family. As in all criminal cases, it is for the court to decide what sentence is appropriate-but the sentencing assessment currently being conducted by the Lord Chancellor is now considering the sentencing framework as a whole. In response to my hon. Friend's specific point, we intend to publish proposals for the reform of sentencing and criminal justice in the autumn, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity thereafter to debate them.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am holding in my hand the most recent paper from the Library about the hours of the House. It claims that the House adjourns at 10 pm on Monday and Tuesday, at 7 pm on Wednesday and at 6 pm on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that last night we did not move to the Adjournment debate until 3 minutes past 10. What is he going to do to make the hours of the House more predictable and family-friendly?

George Young: One has to put the hon. Lady's request in the context of the earlier request for more time to debate the constitutional measure currently going through the House. The events of this week and last week are unusual, in that we are debating a constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House and we have allowed injury time for statements that we knew were going to take place. That will not be the normal pattern of sittings, and I hope that normal service will be resumed quite soon.

David Nuttall: Following yesterday's vote in the European Parliament to increase the costs of maternity leave, can we find time for a debate on the impact of the additional burdens being imposed on British businesses by the European Union?

George Young: I am disappointed by the outcome of yesterday's vote in the European Parliament, but that is not the end of the process. The UK will work hard in Council to oppose the imposition of a requirement for fully paid maternity leave, and we expect other member states to join us.  [ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members look at the details of the directive, they will see that it is entirely regressive, as the greatest benefits would be obtained by those earning the most.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on the so-called fairness of the CSR? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 862, which effectively calls on the top-10%-the wealthiest people in the country-to make a significant financial contribution to the country's deficit?
	 [That this House agrees with Professor Greg Philo, research director of Glasgow University Media Group, that the UK's current financial deficit could be significantly reduced if the richest 10 per cent. of Britain's citizens paid a one off tax of just 20 per cent. of their personal wealth, which would not have any immediate impact on their quality of life; notes that 74 per cent. of the British public polled recently agree with this proposal; further notes that if this were to happen there would be no need for drastic cuts to public services and armed forces, and there would be less need for major job losses; and therefore calls on the Government to explore how this objective could be achieved, either on a voluntary basis or by legislation if necessary.]
	That money, which those people will never spend, would make a significant contribution to reducing the deficit and alleviating the anxieties of UK citizens.

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have announced when the CSR will be debated, and those points can be made then. If he looks at the tables in the back of the paper published yesterday-tables B4, B5 and B6-he will see that the top 10% are bearing a disproportionate part of the burden, and rightly so.

Andrew Griffiths: As has been highlighted by both the  Burton Mail and the Federation of Small Businesses, small businesses in Burton and across the country are suffering as a result of larger firms unilaterally extending payment terms from 30 days to 60 days-or to 90 days in some cases. Given that those firms are struggling as a result of difficulties in accessing finance from the banks, can we have an urgent debate to see what we can do about that double whammy, and to support small businesses across the country?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the Government are taking steps to help small businesses by, for example, requiring that a certain percentage of contracts be put out to be bid for by small and medium-sized businesses. On whether there should be a statutory requirement to settle a bill within a finite number of days, the House has discussed this issue and has so far resisted legislating on it. However, I shall certainly draw his concerns to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether this is an issue that we might reconsider.

Nicholas Dakin: Yesterday the coalition Government announced huge projected increases in unemployment. How high will unemployment have to rise before the Government change their economic strategy? Can we have a statement please?

George Young: I am not aware of any forecast increases in unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures that Office for Budget Responsibility published after we made clear our intention to tackle the deficit and take £83 billion out, he will see that for every year in the coming four years, it predicted a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment. In the second quarter of this year about 300,000 jobs were created, so we need to put all that in a slightly different context.

Alan Reid: On Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill there was not time for every hon. Member who wished to contribute to speak-and that includes me. During last night's Committee deliberations the guillotine fell before we got to the debate on the contrast between the Government's benchmarking of constituencies except for the Western Isles-or Na h-Eileanan an Iar-and the situation for my constituency. The Western Isles constituency has only three islands, whereas mine has 13, which can be reached only by sea or air. The Western Isles has an electorate of 22,000, whereas Argyll and Bute has 67,000 and has double the land area of the Western Isles. Can we have a debate on that important issue on Report?

George Young: I am sorry that because of the verbosity of certain Members we did not reach as many stages of the Bill as we would have liked. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those issues are important, and I hope that, within the constraints that he will understand, it will be possible to debate them on Report.

Mike Gapes: Bearing in mind that the Foreign Secretary hosted a visit by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister this week, may we have an early debate on the situation in Sri Lanka so that Members can ask whether robust statements were made about that island regarding the continuing detention of people, the human rights position, the freedom of the media, and the imprisonment of people who stood in elections?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In addition, on 16 November he will have an opportunity to put those points to Foreign Office Ministers when they are at the Dispatch Box.

Philip Davies: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the politically correct Equality and Human Rights Commission? In a recent parliamentary answer to me, it emerged that in the past four years the commission has had 25 complaints from its own staff about sex discrimination, race discrimination or disability discrimination. Is it not ludicrous that it is given so much public money to stamp out discrimination across the workplace when it has such a bad record itself, and is it not time that this ridiculous body was abolished?

George Young: As always, I welcome my hon. Friend's robust comments. We will shortly introduce a public bodies Bill following the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made last Thursday. If my hon. Friend catches Mr Speaker's eye during the Second Reading of that Bill, he may find an opportunity to develop at greater length the points that he has made.

Kevin Brennan: The Leader of the House made the very welcome statement that the statutory instruments will be laid before the Report stage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, but he left two things out. First, can he confirm that he will be using the affirmative procedure for those statutory instruments? Secondly, given that they are statutory instruments consequential to a constitutional Bill about elections, will he be taking them here on the Floor of the House?

George Young: I should like to reflect on the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and write to him.

Jeremy Lefroy: Earlier this year, the Chancellor made a welcome announcement about proposals to look into growth hubs. Staffordshire university in my constituency, and Keele university in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), are both looking at the possibility of forming such a growth hub. These are extremely important in enabling new, high-growth-potential businesses to get going, so may we have debate on the subject?

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this, and I agree that it is important that we have a debate. He could apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate, or he could come along with me to the Backbench Business Committee on Monday and make a bid for a debate in Back-Bench time.

Thomas Docherty: First, I thank the Leader of the House for his assistance in seeking answers from the Ministry of Defence on the issue of nuclear test veterans.
	May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to column 638W of Tuesday's  Hansard, where the Home Office confirmed that almost 5,000 children hold shotgun licences, including 26 10-year-olds, 72 11-year-olds and 134 12-year-olds? Will he ask the Home Secretary to contact the Association of the Chief Police Officers to find out why there are so many licences and whether the rules should be checked again, and then come to the House to make a statement?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and commend his energy in finding these important pieces of information. The Government are committed to a debate on our gun laws following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in July. That debate will be an opportunity to consider all aspects of gun legislation, including the age limits that he touched on.

Robert Halfon: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the kite mark standard for British car garages, which I raised in my early-day motion 376?
	 [That this House believes that the British Standards Institution (BSI) Kitemark for Garage Services is a good step forward in supplying formal recognition of the good workmanship of some garages and their value for money; notes research which shows that 58 per cent. of people who have had a car serviced in a garage before are not totally confident that the work they have paid for has been carried out; further notes that the BSI is an independent body that owns and operates the Kitemark scheme, and has done much to improve consumer confidence in the quality of a good or service; and therefore calls on the Government to support the BSI Kitemark for Garage Services as a demonstration of compliance to a known national standard.]
	Six out of 10 people who have their car serviced in a garage are not confident that the work has been carried out properly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that motorists should be assured of getting the proper service they deserve?

George Young: Of course motorists are entitled to a high-quality service. I should like to raise with the Secretary of State for Transport the proposition that my hon. Friend has put forward and get a response. He may have an opportunity to develop his argument at greater length in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall.

Derek Twigg: My question is about the continuing disastrous handling of the Building Schools for the Future programme and the savage cuts to it. When I asked the Secretary of State for Education a very simple question-how much money was allocated to two schools in my constituency, The Grange and Wade Deacon, which had been given the go-ahead and which the Government had made great play about-I got a holding answer suggesting that he does not have a clue about what money is available for those schools. Is not that a disgraceful situation? Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made to this House by the Secretary of State?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. If there has been any discourtesy, I apologise for that. I will contact the appropriate Department and see whether we can expedite an answer to his specific question about the costs in those two schools.

Julian Smith: Job creation in British small businesses is vital to the economic recovery. As well as a debate on European Union employment legislation, can we have a debate on the coalition's proposals for further employment legislation in the coming months?

George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important issue. It may be possible for him to raise those important issues in the debate on the CSR that I have announced and get a response from my hon. Friends.

Andy Slaughter: The right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Housing Minister, may have noticed these comments by the chief executive of Shelter on the CSR:
	"The government is denying responsibility for an entire generation's ability to access affordable housing".
	Given the near-market rents for new social tenants, the lack of security, the 16% cut in capital funding and the cuts in housing benefit, when can we have a full debate on the Floor of the House on housing for a future generation, for which this Government are the first to abdicate responsibility?

George Young: We have just had Communities and Local Government questions, when the Housing Minister said that during the 13 years of Labour Government there was a net gain of 14,000 affordable homes over 13 years. If one sets that against the 150,000 affordable homes which, following the CSR, we hope to provide over the next five years, that puts a slightly different gloss on the hon. Gentleman's point.

James Morris: The Leader of the House has announced a full day's debate on the comprehensive spending review. I am not sure whether he will be in a position to do this, but can he clarify who will speak on behalf of the Government, as that might be helpful for Members preparing for the debate? Who else, in an ideal world, would he like to see speaking in that debate?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will open the debate and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will respond. Who else takes part is a matter for Mr Speaker. However, I think it would be helpful if the former Prime Minister were able to come along and explain what steps he would have taken to address the deficit that he has left us with.

Geraint Davies: On the constituencies and boundaries Bill-the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill-the Leader of the House mentioned the importance of a variety of means of scrutiny. First, will he ensure that the recommendations of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which are to be published next week, will be taken seriously by him in his deliberations and by the Government? Secondly, will he confirm that the SIs will be dealt with before Report? Finally, will he ensure that the Welsh Assembly is properly consulted?

Mr Speaker: Order. In future, Members should avoid asking three questions. It is a bit cheeky and rather unfair on colleagues.

George Young: I will choose to answer one of them. The Welsh Affairs Committee report will be available to the Government before the Report stage, and it will therefore be possible to take it on board before we reach the final stages of the Bill.

David Tredinnick: When the House introduced experimental sitting hours in 2003-05, whereby we sat from 11.30 am to 7 pm on a Wednesday-as we do now-and also on a Tuesday, it was never intended that the House should sit in the morning and then through the evening until 10 o'clock, as we did yesterday. Will the Leader of the House consider reintroducing Tuesday morning sittings? Is he aware that we have sat at later hours in this Parliament than we did on any night in the 2005 Parliament?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises the broad issue of the parliamentary calendar and whether we should change Tuesday hours back to ending at 7 o'clock instead of 10 o'clock. The Procedure Committee will examine the sitting hours and the whole parliamentary calendar, and following its inquiry I understand that it will put a range of options before the House. I agree that it is right that the House revisit the issue, because there has been a substantial change in membership since we last visited it. There will be an opportunity to look more radically at how we operate.
	On my hon. Friend's specific question, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the last two weeks have been unusual, partly because this Government want to allow adequate time to scrutinise Bills, particularly important constitutional measures. However, we do not envisage the regime that we have had for the past two weeks being the normal pattern.

Valerie Vaz: One of my constituents is serving a tariff of five years, which will come to an end in December. He has been told that he will not be released unless he undertakes a number of courses. He has undertaken 25 so far. May we have an urgent debate about why those who have paid their debt to society are further punished due to a lack of funds?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady's concern on behalf of her constituent. If she would be good enough to give me the details, I will raise them with the Lord Chancellor and see whether we can get a direct response.

Peter Bone: This new Government have shown themselves willing to put themselves up for scrutiny, especially from Members on their own side of the House-the Opposition seem to have given up. May we have a statement from him on whether we could go slightly further and look into having confirmation hearings for new Cabinet Ministers?

George Young: My hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on Tuesday proposing the abolition of the Whips Office. I am not sure that it was an intelligent career move. The notion of confirmatory hearings for Cabinet Ministers is a novel constitutional innovation, because responsibility currently rests with the Prime Minister. Whether he would want to share it with my hon. Friend and others is a matter for him, so on this particular issue my hon. Friend will just have to hold his breath.

Clive Efford: The Leader of the House must understand that the comprehensive spending review is unprecedented. It will make 500,000 public sector workers unemployed, cut investment in housing by half and make families pay more towards cutting the deficit than the bankers who created the problem in the first place and who still pay themselves excessive bonuses. We need extra time to scrutinise all that, and Opposition Back Benchers need to be able to hold the Government to account for what they are doing right across the public sector as a result of the comprehensive spending review. Comparing the situation with what the previous Government did will not wash. We need more time to discuss the CSR, in Government time.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman should read what the Wright Committee report said about debates on spending reviews. It made it absolutely clear that they were a matter for the House.
	I simply do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about who will pay for the CSR. For the first time, we have produced and published distributional analyses of the impact of the spending review. They show clearly that those with the highest incomes will shoulder the greatest burden, and rightly so. It is not the case that families with children will pay more than twice the amount that banks are being asked to contribute. The child tax credit provision introduced yesterday will protect the least well-off families. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but he will have an opportunity to debate the matter in the time that we have made available to debate the CSR, which strictly speaking we need not have. My right hon. and hon. Friends will rebut all his propositions.

Diana Johnson: The Leader of the House will know that in 2007 Hull was one of the areas that were very badly flooded. Ever since, it has been very difficult for my constituents to get reasonably priced insurance, or indeed insurance at all. In light of the cuts that were made yesterday to the available flooding protection money, may we have a debate in Government time to discuss the direct impact on my constituents, who will now have sky-high insurance premiums, or whether insurance will be withdrawn from the city of Hull altogether?

George Young: I understand the problem of those who find it difficult to get insurance because of either past floods or the prospect of floods. There will be an opportunity on 4 November to raise the issue with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, but in the meantime I will write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to share the hon. Lady's concerns and see whether we can take any measures in consultation with the Association of British Insurers and others to ensure that householders get the insurance they need at an affordable price.

Chuka Umunna: International research has been cited in  The Observer showing that black people are 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched in England and Wales. The researchers said that that was the most glaring example of racial profiling that they had seen. That figure is shocking, and I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who appears no longer to be in his place, that it is precisely why we should retain the Equality and Human Rights Commission. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, to discern whether the police in England and Wales are using their powers of stop and search appropriately?

George Young: I think those powers were extended to the police by the previous Administration. We are not abolishing the EHRC, and we are against any racial profiling when it comes to stop and search. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask her to respond.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their economy, which has enabled everyone to get in within a pretty reasonable time frame.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not here for the Leader of the House's business statement, but I gather that the issue was raised of the statutory instruments that will have to be laid in relation to combining polls in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. They have not yet been laid, but after they are, amendments will have to be made to the Parliament Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which will complete its Committee stage on Monday.
	The Leader of the House has not yet said whether those statutory instruments will be laid and considered before Report. Otherwise, we would not be able to debate all the processes for elections in this House, and they would have to be debated in the other House. Is there any way in which we can ensure that we have clarity? As the junior Minister said in the debate the other day, it would be wholly inappropriate if matters affecting elections were decided not in this House but in the other, unelected Chamber.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is seeking light to be shed on the matter. It is possible that the Leader of the House might wish to assist, but he is under no obligation to do so. It appears that he does not wish to do so at this stage. However, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is nothing if not an assiduous and conscientious parliamentarian, and he has got his point across with some force. Although the Leader of the House has not responded to it, I think I can confidently say that he has heard it.

Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to column 990 of this morning's  Hansard. You may recall that yesterday, the Chancellor made great play of his support for the Mersey Gateway bridge, which would be in my constituency. I welcome that, but I asked him a very simple question about what funding the Government had allocated. He said that he did not know, but that he would come back to me "this afternoon". He later said that he would do so "later today". As of a few minutes ago, I have heard nothing from the Chancellor's office even though my office has been in touch with his. May I ask for your advice? Is that not a discourtesy not just to me but to the House? Opposition Members are concerned about the smoke and mirrors of the Government announcing schemes and cutting funding at the same time. There is a very simple way for the Government to deal with that-they should tell us what funding there is.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I dare say he will share with his local media. I entirely understand his frustration and disappointment, but there are other ways in which he can pursue the matter. He may choose, of course, to provide the extract of his point of order and my response to it to the Treasury, to hasten the very reply that he so eagerly seeks. I do not think I can offer him any further encouragement than that, but he has been in this place for quite a long time, and I have a feeling that questions will be forthcoming if the reply that he wants is not.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify for me, as a new Member, whether a Member who seeks to ask a parliamentary question and has registered a shareholding in the industry to which they are referring should, when they stand, make that share interest clear to the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer to his question is that it is up to the Member to decide whether to do so in the way that he favours. Members certainly have a responsibility to declare their interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Some Members, on speaking in a debate to which they might think those interests are relevant, do choose to announce them, usually at the start of a speech, but as far as I am aware there is no absolute obligation to do so. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will probably wish to pursue the matter with his usual intensity.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Philip Davies, supported by Mr David Davis, Mr Peter Lilley, Mr John Whittingdale, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Mr Philip Hollobone, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of affirmative and positive action in recruitment and appointment processes; to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October 2011, and to be printed (Bill 82).

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to make provision to require all institutions of further and higher education in receipt of public funds to allocate places on merit; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 83).

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to reduce the duties on employers to report matters under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 December 2011 , and to be printed (Bill 84 ).

Compensation (Limitation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to prevent conditional fee agreement success fees and after the event insurance premiums being recoverable from the losing party in civil litigation; to facilitate damages-based agreements for contingency fees in respect of successful litigants; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 85).

Local Government Ombudsman  (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to provide redress against local authorities which unreasonably ban events on the grounds of health and safety.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 86).

Low Hazard Workplaces (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to exempt employers from the requirement to produce a written risk assessment in respect of low hazard workplaces and the premises of those working from their own home with low hazard equipment.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 87).

Self-employment (Risk Assessment Exemption) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to exempt self-employed persons engaged in low hazard activity from the requirement to produce a written risk assessment.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 July 2011, and to be printed (Bill 88).

Health and Safety Consultants (Qualifications) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to introduce qualification requirements for health and safety consultants; to provide accreditation for such consultants; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 July 2011, and to be printed (Bill 89).

Criminal Records (Public Access) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to facilitate access by members of the public to the registers of the Criminal Records Office.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May 2011, and to be printed (Bill 90).

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to abolish the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 May 2011, and to be printed (Bill 91).

Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in respect of systems of risk assessment; to make provision for separate requirements for play, leisure and work-based activities; to introduce simplified risk assessments for schools; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July 2011, and to be printed (Bill 92).

Sale of Park Homes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to facilitate the sale of park homes by residential owners; to restrict the ability of site owners to interfere in such sales; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April 2011, and to be printed (Bill 93).

Volunteering Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to make provision to promote volunteering; to enable potential volunteers to obtain a fit and proper person certificate for their activities; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Road Traffic Accident (Personal Injury) (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to raise to £25,000 the upper limit for awards for road traffic accident personal injury claims introduced under the simplified claims procedure.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 95).

National Health Service Redress  (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to amend the National Health Service Redress Act 2006 to facilitate faster resolution of claims and reduce costs; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September 2011, and to be printed (Bill 96).

Mr Speaker: We are grateful, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will prove to be a very busy bee.

Local Government Bill [ Lords]

Second Reading

Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It was not possible in Question Time to address the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) directly, and I want formally to say how welcome she is to her appointment. I am sure that she will be a formidable opponent at the Dispatch Box. I noted her expressions of willingness to work with us on several issues. As we share similar views on several matters, I expect that to happen. However, if it does not work out, we will always have Paris. I just leave that hanging in the air.
	The Bill simply fulfils the commitment in the coalition agreement that
	"we will stop the restructuring of councils in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon."
	It is a short Bill-indeed, the explanatory notes, the European convention on human rights certification, the contents and the front page are longer than the Bill, which has only one substantive clause. I doubt whether all the Bills that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) moved will be as short as this Bill. However, at last we know exactly what the future holds for people living in the aforementioned counties. In fact, since the Bill is so obviously a common-sense and worthwhile measure, it is worth reminding the House why it is needed.
	It is quite a saga, worthy of Jarndyce  v. Jarndyce in Charles Dickens's "Bleak House". Through the magic of Mr Dickens's words, that case has become a byword for an interminable and pointless proceeding. So we find ourselves with the Bill. With judicial reviews, a league of lobbyists and dubious challenges on hybridity, the measure ran the risk of becoming, to misquote Dickens, "a scarecrow of a"
	Bill, which would,
	"in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means."
	So let us remind ourselves of how we got into that mess.
	In the dying days of the Labour Government, the then Secretary of State chose to defy common sense and overturn the decision of his Labour predecessor. He decided to ignore independent advice and unilaterally impose unitary councils in the areas that we are considering. He has moved to pastures new, leaving us with an unwanted and worthless legacy. Why was that Labour civil war necessary? Why was Labour Secretary of State pitched against Labour Secretary of State? No one really knows. In the former Secretary of State's absence, I suppose that I will do my best to guess and help out.
	Was the reason to save money? No. There were sketchy and dubious estimates that eventually the decision might save £6 million a year, but only after spending £40 million on the costs of reorganisation. A critique by Professors Michael Chisholm and Steve Leach, noted local government experts, stated:
	"The Government was economical with the truth about LGR"-
	local government reorganisation-
	"selective and inconsistent in its use of evidence, with the result that misleading impressions have been conveyed to local authorities, the public and Parliament."
	Perhaps that was a harsh judgment, but it is difficult to argue against it. The professors also argued that
	"there are cogent reasons for thinking that minsters are exaggerating the financial benefits of unitary councils".
	If the reason was not money, perhaps it was popular fervour. Perhaps the people of Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon were crying out, "What do we want?" "A unitary council!" "When do we want it?" "Now!" Sadly, we were spared that surreal spectacle. In the most recent consultation, more than half the responses in Norfolk and 85% of those in Devon showed that the people did not want any change. That is not surprising; they just wanted the councils to get on with more important matters.
	Perhaps the reason was that the councils could work more effectively if they became unitaries. No. In fact, the councils did not even fulfil the Labour Government's own criteria for becoming unitaries. The Labour Government's assessment was that the proposal in Exeter was unaffordable, and that the proposal in Norwich was both unaffordable and poor value for money. Yet the former Secretary of State blithely disregarded that. Instead, he cited his own deep and mysterious "compelling reasons" why those councils should become unitaries, which are perhaps the same compelling reasons why a suicide of lemmings feel the need to speed to the Scandinavian seaside. However, those reasons were not sufficiently "compelling" to persuade his own civil servants.
	The former permanent secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government, as chief accounting officer, wrote to my predecessor warning that the change
	"would impact adversely on the financial position of the public sector."
	He went on to say that
	"the evidence for such gains is mixed and representations that you have received provide no evidence to quantify such benefits."
	He further remarked that
	"there is every likelihood of such judicial review proceedings being commenced"
	and asked, as is normal in such circumstances, for written instructions to implement the proposals.
	The reasons were rejected in the other place, where a motion of regret expressing strong concerns was passed overwhelmingly. All that was ultimately overturned by the High Court, which found on 5 July that the decision was unlawful, because the former Secretary of State failed to consult on departing from his Government's own criteria. I suppose that we should forgive him for getting involved in judicial reviews-it can happen to the best of us. As a result of the court case, the structural change orders were quashed, and elections have since been held for seats in Exeter and Norwich, where contests were deferred by the orders.
	Hon. Members, being reasonable people, may well ask why we need this Bill at all. I have some "compelling reasons" of my own. Although the High Court has struck down the orders that would implement the proposals, the proposals themselves still theoretically exist. They are zombie proposals that have refused to lay down and die. Anyone who follows horror movies knows that the only way to kill a zombie is to sever its head from its body. I am here today, shovel in hand, ready to perform, with the help of the House, that very task. We need to remove the possibility of anyone wasting any more time on those near-dead orders. We need to release councillors in Norfolk, Devon and Suffolk from the legal limbo in which they are trapped, so that they can get on with what really matters: protecting the front line and providing the best possible local services.
	This whole story of woe illustrates the consequences of the previous Government's command-and-control approach to local government. It mattered not what local people thought or how much it cost-they simply pressed on regardless. In contrast, this Government genuinely believe that councils work best when they are freed from the interference and micro-management that were the hallmark of the previous Administration.
	The measures were the last, dying attempt of a lost, dying Government to change the structure of local government. In many ways, that was the culmination of the way in which this House has traditionally dealt with local government: it tries to change structure first, and then to allow function to follow. I am much more interested in changing the function of local government. If it is necessary in future to catch up on structure, so be it, but I do not envisage that to happen for some considerable time.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the Secretary of State clarify for the House his understanding of the implications of the Bill? Will it prevent unitary applications coming forward only from the three counties he has mentioned, or will it prevent any applications at all?

Eric Pickles: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is an assiduous reader of the specialist press. I recall seeing an article in the  Municipal Journal that said that I had in the top left-hand drawer of my office a pearl-handled revolver with which to shoot the first person to suggest a restructuring of local government. The last time I checked, the revolver was fully loaded and waiting for such a person.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State has not answered my question on the impact of the Bill.

Eric Pickles: I am sorry if levity got in the way of my answer, but I shall give the same basic answer now. The Bill finishes the process I outlined. It would be theoretically possible to start the process again, were someone brave enough to come through my door to suggest that we throw £40 million of council tax payers' money away. The Bill stops the process in respect of the counties I mentioned, but it kills only one zombie-it does not mean that another zombie will not turn up in due course.
	We want to make local authorities genuine leaders of their local communities, with a real say in the issues that matter to local people, such as housing, planning and the local economy, and even the NHS. Instead of making councils turn themselves inside out in response to the whims of a Secretary of State, we are giving them the freedom, the power and the responsibility to decide for themselves what they need to do.
	Of course, it is only common sense that through closer collaboration and more joint working, councils can not only save money, but improve the services on offer to local people. They do not have to become unitary to do that, or to spend £40 million getting there, or to embark on a lengthy, expensive and disruptive centrally imposed process. Most councils are ready to come together and already do so by sharing chief executives, pooling back-office functions or even departments such as planning, and conducting joint procurement. I welcome that, and we know that it will make a huge difference. The Local Government Association has said that joining up services could save around £5 billion a year.
	Councils are working to eliminate every trace of waste and re-examining how they work and the way in which every service is delivered. They are concentrating on becoming more effective and more productive than ever before, but they are doing so without the Secretary of State breathing down their necks, telling them exactly what to do, when to do it, and most corrosively of all, how to do it. They know that there are more effective ways to go about that than putting themselves through the lengthy and expensive rigmarole of restructuring. People want to see their councils saving money by concentrating on what really matters to them. I do not think there are many council tax payers who would put restructuring at the top of their wish list.
	The proposals for local government restructuring were nothing but a wasteful and unnecessary distraction in these straitened times. The £40 million that the process would have cost is the equivalent of the entire residential care budget in Devon for a year. The money, time and effort that might have been invested in shuffling the deckchairs can now be invested in facing up to the challenges of the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Caroline Flint: I am looking forward to a number of exchanges with the Secretary of State across the Dispatch Box in the months-but, hopefully, not too many years-ahead. Just for the record, the right hon. Gentleman and I did attend a conference in Paris, but I am pleased to say that Mrs Pickles was there, as was my husband.
	Characteristically, the Secretary of State made an attempt at an entertaining speech, but in doing so, he completely ignored the views of people in Exeter and Norwich and their desire for true localism in their communities. He exercised a typically liberal relationship with some of the facts. Following yesterday's announcement of devastating cuts to local councils, the future of local Government is on all our minds. As we highlighted during Question Time, the cuts are much worse than those faced across the board in Whitehall Departments and far deeper than is necessary to deal with the deficit-and they are cuts of his choosing, not of necessity.
	Let me make it clear at the outset that Labour believes in the benefits of unitary authorities, and we support the aspirations of Norwich and Exeter to achieve unitary status. Each application must be considered on its merits and on a case-by-case basis, but in principle we believe that strong local leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve where local government has a two-tier structure. The Conservatives used to believe that too. The last time that they were in power they created 100 new unitary authorities.
	The Liberal Democrats used to believe it as well, but-like their pledge not to increase VAT and their six-point plan to scrap tuition fees-their commitment to unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter has been thrown on to the scrap heap of abandoned promises. Their policy paper, approved at Liberal Democrat party conference, states:
	"Having several tiers of government can not only lead to confusion over which tier is responsible for what, but can also mean that some councils seem very remote from the communities they serve. The Liberal Democrats therefore believe that there should be a single tier of local government."
	Let me deal with a few of the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State. He says that the decision to set up unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter does not represent value for money. He says that it will cost £40 million. That is simply not true. What he fails to mention is that the very same document from which he got those figures-the impact assessment, produced by his Department-also shows that in the same period savings of £39.4 million would be made; and in the years after that, annual savings of £6.5 million would be made. Now, if the Secretary of State does not understand the difference between up-front costs and ongoing savings, I fear that we really are in trouble in the stormy waters ahead. As his Minister in the other place, Baroness Hanham, was forced to admit, if Norwich and Exeter were given unitary status
	"there ultimately would be savings".
	That is the reality.
	Granting Norwich and Exeter unitary status would save the taxpayer money. The Government's position is voluntarily to forgo the opportunity for Norwich and Exeter to save the taxpayer £6.5 million a year. The Secretary of State is within his rights to reject the application-that is his prerogative-but let him at least do it on the basis of the facts.
	As for the letter of instruction from the permanent secretary, let me say this. In the end, officials are there to advise. They do not take decisions and are not accountable to Parliament. Ministers must make decisions and I believe that the previous Secretary of State was right to take the decision that he did. What the permanent secretary said was that creating unitary authorities to include the entire counties of Devon and Norfolk would create greater savings. The only problem with the proposal, however, was that it was never a viable option. The only people who appear to have supported the proposal were the permanent secretary and the Boundary Commission. It had no local support whatever, either from the cities of Norwich and Exeter or indeed from the counties of Norfolk and Devon, and it would not have met the criteria laid out by the Secretary of State.
	What the permanent secretary did not say, as the Secretary of State suggested, was that the existing arrangements offered better value for money than creating unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter. How could the right hon. Gentleman say that? As we have seen, the impact assessment produced by the Department shows clearly that after the initial up-front costs-amounting to £600,000-there would be year-on-year savings of £6.5 million. The worst value-for-money option-the most expensive option-is the current arrangement, but that is the one for which the Secretary of State has opted. So much for value for money.
	Let me also deal with the points made in the High Court ruling. Of course, we accept the judgment. However, this is a political issue and it is right that it should be hammered out and determined by Parliament. The provisions relating to Exeter and Norwich were not imposed by anyone. They were debated in Parliament for more than seven hours, voted on, and approved in both Houses of Parliament. In this House and in the other place, a clear majority supported creating unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter.
	Let me remind the House that Mr Justice Ouseley made no criticism whatever on the merits of creating unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter. He was absolutely clear that the Secretary of State was entitled to make a decision on the matter, and that it was perfectly reasonable for him to take the prevailing economic circumstances into account. He simply said that the consultation process was not adequate. The Secretary of State was not able to consult more fully than he did because of the length of time that it took for the proposals to reach him. Owing to a series of judicial reviews and legal challenges, the proposals were twice postponed and took a year longer than expected to reach the Secretary of State, which substantially reduced his ability to consult more extensively.
	Mr Justice Ouseley was at pains to emphasise that his ruling in no way prevented the Secretary of State from bringing forward the proposals again after a short period of consultation, but this Secretary of State has chosen not to do so. He has chosen to deny the people of Norwich and Exeter the chance to run their own cities. The fundamental point here is what is right for Norwich and Exeter.

George Hollingbery: Can the right hon. Lady remind me who set up the rules and regulations under which this process made its way to the judicial review, and can she remind me of the outcome of that review in terms of the process followed by the previous Government?

Caroline Flint: The criteria were set up by the Labour Government as guidelines to inform the Secretary of State when making decisions about this case. Every proposal, as I have said, has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances when the applications are made and reaching the point of final decision.

George Hollingbery: rose-

Caroline Flint: I wish to make some progress and I hope to deal further with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will be happy to give way to him again later.
	The Government's assessment of the original bids in respect of Exeter and Norwich found that they satisfied all the criteria except for the payback period for the transition costs, which was estimated to be six years rather than five. However, given the small transition costs owing to the year-on-year savings-and given the economic circumstances at the time and the overriding priority of supporting economic growth and creating jobs-we believed that there were compelling reasons to create unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Lady has mentioned what she called the small cost of the transition and the savings of £6.5 million to be made. However, those savings are for 2015-16 onwards. Was it the previous Government's view that the massive upheaval and uncertainty for those counties and what is actually a large sum of money-even if she called it a small amount-was worth it in the hope that, in five years' time, those savings would be delivered? Given how much the economy has changed in the past five years, the chances of seeing those savings seem slim.

Caroline Flint: As I have outlined, and as is clear from the impact assessment provided by the Department, the most expensive option is the status quo. I am sure that my hon. Friends will make the point that in both Exeter and Norwich the local authorities are the driving engine for jobs and economic progress in their regions- [ Interruption. ] Yes they are, and therefore the opportunity to enhance Norwich and Exeter as cities of importance and expand their already good track record-as the people and businesses in the areas wanted-has been lost, because the Secretary of State does not recognise the truth of the situation.
	The criteria exist to help the Secretary of State decide on the merits of an application. No set of criteria, however exhaustive, can make a decision-a judgment always has to be made. The point that this Secretary of State does not seem able to grasp is that, in essence, what we are debating is what is right for the people of Norwich and Exeter, what will deliver the best services for them, and what they want for their cities. Time and again, the Secretary of State has said that the proposals were not supported by local people. As he well knows, that is simply not true. He talks as if the proposals were somehow imposed by the Labour Government, for political purposes, against the wishes of local people. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if the Secretary of State does not believe me, he should go to Norwich and Exeter for himself. The people there will tell him what they think. Indeed, they already have. The fact that Labour made gains and the Tories suffered losses in both Norwich and Exeter in what were, essentially, single-issue by-elections will surely not have escaped his notice. In fact, the original move to become a unitary authority in Norwich was made by a Liberal Democrat-the Secretary of State's coalition partners-not by the Labour party. The proposal enjoys cross-party support on the council and in the city. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that local people support the principle of single-tier local government in the city by a margin of two to one.
	I pay tribute to the work of my former right hon. Friend, Charles Clarke, and the noble Baroness Hollis for the tremendous leadership that they have shown for the people of Norwich. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who follows in my former right hon. Friend's footsteps and sits on the same Benches as the Secretary of State, also supports unitary status, as does his wife, a city councillor in Norwich. A few days before the election, he said:
	"It is very much a positive step...I broadly welcome a unitary Norwich. I think it is a good thing in terms of the democratic voice for the people of Norwich."
	We wait to see whether that is still his view today, or whether what he said has gone the way of so many other Liberal Democrat promises.
	We all know what a bugbear the Secretary of State has about council-funded newspapers, so I know that he will be keen to hear the views of the independent  Norwich Evening News on the matter. Its editorial after the decision was announced was clear:
	"Unitary decision is a wonderful opportunity".
	The same is true in Exeter, where the move to unitary status is supported by all four parties on the city council, including the Conservatives. In a vote in December 2009, the city council overwhelmingly agreed, by a margin of 31 votes to two, to support the city's bid for unitary status, but the Secretary of State, sitting at his desk in Whitehall, thinks that he knows better than the people of Exeter.
	The Secretary of State would be well advised to pay close attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when he speaks, because he has been a champion for his constituents on this and many other issues, and he knows what the people of Exeter want. Failing that, the Secretary of State should at least listen to his own party members and councillors in Exeter, because they support a unitary authority too. Let me remind the House of the words of Councillor Yolanda Henson, the leader of the Conservatives on Exeter city council. She said:
	"We have always backed the Exeter unitary bid and said we would like to control our own destiny. We represent the people of Exeter and, of course, my colleagues are going against what we are going to get and they are going to lose."
	I think that she was talking about the Secretary of State.
	What people in Norwich and Exeter will remember is that it was a Tory Government, in 1974, who abolished their unitary councils, after hundreds of years of self-government. They will not forget that it is a Tory Government, with Liberal Democrat cheerleaders, who have prevented them from running their own cities again. Norwich and Exeter are great, proud cities, with long histories of self-government and a desire to manage their own affairs. What this Bill really exposes is the gaping hole at the heart of the coalition's plans to give greater powers to local authorities and local communities. The Conservatives say that they want to devolve power to local government and local people. The Secretary of State said:
	"If you want to restore faith in politics...if you want people to feel connected to their communities, proud of their communities, then you give people a real say over what happens in their communities".
	He also said that he wants to
	"put town halls back in charge of local affairs"-
	just not in Norwich or Exeter. He says that he wants localism, but he is not happy for the people of Norwich to decide for themselves what time they turn their street lighting off, how they fund their schools, or which children's centres should be spared the devastating cuts that the Government have imposed on them. That is his form of localism.
	What does all this say about the Government's policy on unitary authorities? The last time the Conservatives were in power, they set up nearly 100 unitary authorities across the country. Now we learn that they just do not believe in them any more. In the other place, the noble Baroness Hanham confirmed their policy, saying that
	"the Government have no plans to issue further invitations for unitary authorities".-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1832.]
	So there we have it: the Government believe that two-tier systems are more efficient more accountable, and better value for money than single-tier unitary authorities-with counties disposing of waste and districts collecting it; districts dealing with town planning and counties dealing with transport planning; districts cleaning the pavements and cutting the grass, and counties keeping the roads clear; and with all the separate back-room functions that that entails. So much for simplification, reducing duplication and cutting bureaucracy.
	Like on so many things, the Secretary of State appears to be all talk and no trousers. This is a petty, vindictive and, frankly, pointless Bill. It cannot change the situation in Norwich or Exeter, as the High Court has already quashed the orders setting up unitary authorities there; nor does it reform the process for setting up unitary authorities, as part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 remains unchanged. The one thing that the Bill does effect is unnecessary, because unless the Secretary of State needs protecting from himself-which is not an entirely unreasonable suggestion-he does not need legislation to prevent himself from creating unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter. All he has to do is not lay the orders. It is as simple as that.
	At a time when local authorities are losing almost a third of their funding and communities are being denied the vital front-lines services that they rely on, creating unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter could have saved those councils money-money that they could have used to try to militate against the devastating cuts that this Government have imposed. Creating unitary authorities was supported by the people of those cities. The proposal would have helped to deliver more efficient and accountable services to local people, and would have spurred economic growth and created jobs when we need them most, benefiting not only those cities themselves, but the surrounding counties. Instead, the Secretary of State, who likes to vaunt his localist credentials, but so badly failed to stand up for local councils in the comprehensive spending review, has left Norwich and Exeter, like so many town halls up and down the country, high, dry and hard-up.

Keith Simpson: Let me begin by saying that I warmly support the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Let me also remind colleagues on both sides of the House that the announcements made yesterday and their effect on local government were brought about entirely by the incompetence of the last Labour Government. The cuts are due entirely to those Members who are now on the Opposition Benches, and we are going to hang that round their necks. People in Norwich and Norfolk know that only too well.
	My right hon. Friend began by saying that the whole issue was like something straight out of Dickens' Jarndyce  v. Jarndyce. It has been going on for four years, and at the outset-my constituency was then called Mid-Norfolk; it is now called Broadland-I was in favour of the status quo, although I was prepared to hear the arguments. The problem that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has, and which Opposition Members generally have, particularly the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), is that when we look at the sorry trail of order, counter-order and disorder over the past four years-the different instructions given to the boundary committee, the contradictory instructions given by successive Secretaries of State, the amounts of money that have been wasted, and, perhaps most importantly, the original riding instructions given to the boundary committee-we see that the views of local people were specifically excluded. There was no democracy at all. Indeed, the very few opinion polls that have ever been conducted in Norwich and Norfolk-we cannot look at the unitary issue without considering the whole county-showed no advantage at all to those who wanted a unitary authority.
	The irony is that, to begin with, pressure was brought to bear on the boundary committee to consider expanding the boundaries of Norwich to include its outer areas, but not one individual wanted to join a unitary Norwich, as became obvious in the local government elections and from the letters and e-mails I received from the surrounding villages that would have become part of a greater Norwich. Why did they not want to enter a unitary Norwich? It was not a question of ideology or principle; unfortunately for the right Member for Don Valley, it was because Norwich city council has been incompetently run under Labour for decades. Norwich city council has had high council tax, has been unable to achieve high scores for any local government criteria, and has had a housing scandal in only the past two years. It has been an absolute disgrace, and as somebody who was born in Norwich I think it a great shame that such a fine city has had to put up with such total and utter incompetence. I suggest that the Institute for Government use the track record of the past four years as a model for how not to carry out reform in government. However, what has happened is well documented, so I will not go into it again.
	There is no overall public support for the proposal. The right hon. Lady pointed out the financial consequences, but having seen different sets of figures produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government over the past four years, even the former Member for Norwich North, Dr Ian Gibson-who was deselected by the Labour party and resigned, after which there was a by-election, which was won by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who was re-elected in the general election-could not see the advantages. The disadvantages would be felt not just by the people of Norwich, but by the people of Norfolk. The population of Norwich is approximately 130,000, but these proposals would have affected the population of Norfolk, which is nearly 800,000. What would have been the advantage of having two directors of libraries, two police forces and two of virtually everything else? There would have been no advantage whatever.
	This sorry saga has incurred a vast cost to taxpayers living in my constituency and in Norwich. I would be interested to put in a freedom of information request to see what letters, e-mails and conversations Ministers' private secretaries received from members of the Labour party over the past four years. It has been obvious to people living in Norfolk that this has been a ramp by the Labour party intended to secure a Labour party advantage. The great irony is that, as a consequence, there are no Labour MPs left in Norfolk at all. The people of Norwich and Norfolk have recognised how incompetent this process has been and how much it has cost. The attempts by the noble Baroness Hollis to seek all kinds of judicial reviews to string things out have been regarded as a joke in Norwich-and the same could be said of Exeter.
	I come back to my first point. The right hon. Member for Don Valley laid great emphasis on democratic representation and criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not letting local communities decide. Local communities did decide. They made that quite clear in a by-election and a general election, which saw Labour lose two Norwich seats and the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). The people of Norwich and Norfolk have spoken. I support the measure proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Ben Bradshaw: For a Government who claim to want to give more power to local communities and to devolve decision making downwards, this is a most astonishing Bill to force through Parliament as a priority today. The Secretary of State said on 8 June this year:
	"I want to give an indication of my three most important priorities. These are: localism, localism and localism."
	The Conservative manifesto referred to
	"Making politics more local... we want to pass power down to people",
	while the coalition agreement spoke of a
	"radical devolution of power to local government and community groups".
	Someone called the "decentralisation Minister" told the local government conference on 8 July that he would
	"put town halls back in charge of local affairs".
	How hollow those promises sound today, as this Government seek to drive through a Bill that will achieve exactly the opposite, depriving the people of Exeter and Norwich of their localism and their historic unitary status. They have fought for nearly four decades to regain the right to run their own affairs. The Government are not handing power down, but up to the bigger, more remote and much less accountable Devon and Norfolk county councils.
	We have already heard that today's debate involves unfinished business not of the last four years, but of the last 36 years. Before 1974, Exeter and Norwich had both enjoyed their own local government for hundreds of years-long before county councils were even thought about.
	We do not need to rehearse the arguments for unitary government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has already expounded them. Suffice it to say that unitary government used to have all-party support for the obvious reason that it is more efficient, more transparent and more accountable. Indeed, the last Conservative Government recognised that and acknowledged the mistakes they had made in 1974, as they created a further 46 new unitary authorities after 1974, including the only other two sizeable urban areas in Devon-Plymouth and Torbay. That reorganisation under the last Conservative Government left Exeter and Norwich as the biggest cities in England without control over their own affairs. That lack of democratic accountability is felt even more acutely in those great provincial cities that are in the middle of large rural counties, where most of the services continue to be delivered and the decisions continue to be taken by rural-dominated county councils.
	That is the situation that the Labour Government inherited. We quite rightly recognised the role of cities such as Norwich and Exeter as economic growth points, and the desirability of unitary government in being less wasteful and more accountable. In 2006, we invited bids from anyone interested to come forward with suggestions for unitary government. Like a number of other towns and cities across England, Exeter responded enthusiastically.
	Exeter's bid enjoyed all-party support. We have already heard one quote from the leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Yolonda Henson. She wrote to my local newspaper, the  Express & Echo on 10 March this year:
	"In one of the greatest political statements ever spoken, Abraham Lincoln praised the virtues of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is precisely what the restoration of unitary local government is promising for the people of Exeter."
	I could not have put it better than the Conservative group leader on Exeter city council. I would like to pay tribute to Councillor Henson and her fellow Conservative councillors for withstanding the constant bullying and pressure from their party at the national level and from Conservative councillors at County hall. It was not only all the political parties on Exeter city council that supported our unitary bid, as every single significant stakeholder in the city supported it: Exeter university, Exeter chamber of commerce and the voluntary sector. Every single opinion poll carried out in Exeter showed that the overwhelming majority of people in the city wanted their own self-rule.
	At this point, I note the comments of Lord Burnett during consideration of this Bill in the other place. He claimed that the recent general election result in Exeter was evidence of opposition to unitary status. I have to inform Lord Burnett that in Exeter Labour secured the second-lowest swing against it anywhere in the south-west. The poor Conservative candidate, caught between her local party and central office, sat so firmly on the fence on the issue that I wondered how she did not split in half. She did much worse than the Conservatives had expected, given the tens of thousands of pounds of Ashcroft money they poured into Exeter. The poor Liberal Democrat candidate, who defied his own local party and came out against unitary status, was the only Liberal Democrat in the whole of the south-west whose vote went down. As with so much of what else Lord Burnett has said on this matter, he is grossly ill informed and the facts are quite the opposite of what he claimed.
	Exeter's original bid had all-party, all-stakeholder and public support. We should not forget that it would have been perfectly possible at that time for counter bids to be made by Devon county council or Norfolk county council, but that did not happen. The then Labour Government regarded Exeter's bid as one of the strongest, but, as we have already heard, it narrowly failed to come through on one of the criteria-the affordability criterion, as it would have taken a long time to pay back the costs.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the failure of alternative bids-for example, from Norfolk. There was advice from the Department about what should have been considered. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would accept that this happened in Norfolk because Norfolk county council wanted the status quo and did not want to be messed about by the Government in the first place.

Ben Bradshaw: That might well be the case, but my point is that it would have been perfectly open to either Norfolk or Devon to make counter-unitary bids, but there was no support. I accept that there was no support in Devon or Norfolk for those initiatives and I shall come on to explain why. That is exactly why the Labour Secretary of State came to the conclusions he did.
	Exeter's bid was considered one of the strongest, but it narrowly failed on one of the criteria because there were no corresponding unitary bids from the rest of Devon. There were weaker bids at that time: there was a bid from Bedford and a bid from Chester that went through because there were corresponding unitary solutions covering the rest of those counties. That being the case, I think the Government were absolutely right to ask the boundary committee to look at possible unitary solutions covering the whole of Devon-and the same for Norfolk and Suffolk.
	I have to say that describing the boundary committee process as unsatisfactory would be the understatement of the century. It took two years and it had a flawed consultation, which had to be started again. It was plagued by a series of self-serving judicial reviews from some of the district authorities that were worried about being abolished. There was a strong-and, I believe, justified-suspicion in both Exeter and Norwich that the boundary committee and Department for Communities and Local Government officials were not balanced in their approach, favouring the more powerful counties against the cities.

Gordon Birtwistle: I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the bids in 2006, when Burnley and Pendle put in a bid for a unitary authority following a visit by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), to Lancashire county council, who declared it a basket case under the rule of the Labour party. Burnley and Pendle put in that bid, and it was declared to be excellent, yet the then Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), turned it down. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reasons for that, in the light of what he is now saying about Norwich and Exeter?

Ben Bradshaw: You will have to forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am not an expert on the local situation in Burnley and Pendle. Perhaps one of my Front-Bench colleagues will be able to address that point when they respond to the debate later.
	I was talking about the concerns that Exeter and Norwich expressed about the fairness and balance of the process. Professor Ron Johnston, the local government expert on the boundary committee and one of its more experienced members, resigned from the committee in July 2009 because he felt that its approach had been unfair to Exeter and Norwich. He wrote to the then Secretary of State in January this year, saying that
	"the position of Exeter concerned me greatly throughout the 15 months of discussions...Exeter is a major economic growth point, and in my view, such an important urban area should have its own separate local government (democratically accountable to its residents) with control over economic and spatial planning".
	Following the illustration of the flawed nature of the boundary committee's work, it ended up recommending a unitary single Devon and a unitary single Norfolk, which has already been criticised by Conservative Members. Neither solution was supported by anyone. Devon county council did not want a unitary Devon, and it was that suggestion that provoked the most opposition during the consultation process. It was certainly totally unacceptable to Exeter, just as it would have been for Norwich. There was no precedent for a city of that size or significance being subsumed into a unitary county in modern times, and it would have been totally unacceptable.
	The Secretary of State therefore had a problem. It was open to him or her to accept, reject or vary the boundary committee's recommendation. Given the strong opposition to a unitary county, the strong support in Exeter for a unitary Exeter, and the opposition around Exeter to a unitary greater Exeter-which had been one of the options early in the process-my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) reverted to Exeter's original bid, and he was absolutely right to do so. Given the length of time and the uncertainty involved, he was absolutely right to recognise Exeter's right to self-determination.
	Much has been made today of the affordability criteria. Indeed, that was the main plank of the Secretary of State's reasoning. However, Professor Ron Johnston wrote in his resignation letter that
	"this criterion made the creation of a viable urban authority based on Exeter and its immediate surrounding area extremely difficult, if not impossible."
	In other words, the criterion was flawed. Even if it had not been, the increased importance of Exeter as a driver for growth-it had the third highest level of growth anywhere in England between 1998 and 2006-had rendered the criterion redundant. Indeed, that was recognised by the then Secretary of State when he said that he was justified in departing from the presumption that unitary proposals that do not meet all five criteria were not to be implemented.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has reminded the House that in the long run, far from costing money, the unitary solutions for Exeter and Norwich would have saved money. I have here a letter from Baroness Hanham, dated 22 July 2010, which states that the
	"net costs of creating a unitary Exeter during the transition period to 2014-15"
	would be £2.5 million. The annual savings after that would be £2.6 million a year. In the case of Norwich, the projected savings are even greater. The net cost of creating a unitary Norwich up to 2014-15 would be £1.9 million, with annual savings thereafter of £3.9 million. It is simply wrong for the Secretary of State to say that this process would have cost money in the long run. It is also wrong of him not to recognise that the most expensive option is the status quo.
	In the Bill, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government are treating the people of Exeter and Norwich, two of our great historic English cities, with complete contempt. The Government claim to support local democracy and the devolution of power down to local communities, but in their first local government Bill since the election they are doing exactly the opposite. In an act of pure political vindictiveness, they are taking away the local autonomy that Exeter and Norwich had at last regained, after nearly 40 years of waiting.
	The people of Exeter and Norwich will not forget this shabby treatment by the coalition. Indeed, they have already had the opportunity to make their views plain. Thanks to the outrageous and dictatorial way in which this Government have handled the whole process, Exeter and Norwich were forced to hold unwanted local elections last month. In Exeter, the Conservatives lost three seats to Labour, and the Liberal Democrat vote did not just go down, it collapsed. The immediate result of this Government's shabby treatment of my city is that Labour has regained control of the council, because of the anger felt by Exeter people towards the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. We are unlikely to persuade this Government of the justice of Exeter and Norwich's claim for self rule, but those two great cities will not give up. They were proud, self-governing cities for hundreds of years before county councils were even thought of, and I am confident that, when we again have a Labour Government who are committed to localism in deeds and not just in words, their long march to recover their lost freedom will be won.

Anne-Marie Morris: I thank the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for his contribution. I hear what he is saying, but he and I have rather different memories of what happened at that time. He has implied that the county of Devon was in favour of the unitary proposal for Exeter, but that is certainly not my recollection. Indeed, the people of Devon were not at all in favour of such a unitary authority for a number of reasons, and that is why I rise to support the Bill.
	Newton Abbot is part of Devon, and we are served by Devon county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) made a good point earlier when he said that we need to consider the impact on those we leave behind, as well as those we put into a unitary authority. What would happen to the rest of Devon if we were to carve out Exeter? Exeter has a large population, and a unitary authority would attract a lot of funding. What would happen to the remaining rump? Devon has one of the largest geographical areas in the country. Parts of it are also in the lowest quartile of economic resilience. Across the county, 20% comprises rural villages and hamlets, and it has already been noted that Torbay and Plymouth-two other large centres of population-have already been carved out of it. The remainder of Devon is a large swathe of small villages.
	Devon faces challenges not only of rurality but of an above-average number of older people, as a consequence of people liking to go there to retire. Why does that matter? It matters because of the way in which public funding formulae work. For the most part, rurality and the age of the population are not taken into account. The consequence for education in Devon can be seen in the league tables for the country; Devon is now 148th out of 151. That means that our children are getting £300 less per head spent on them, which adds up to a substantial amount for a sizable secondary school. In health, we are also below average. It is true that statistics show a figure of only 1.1%, which seems like a very small number. That completely misrepresents the position, however, because of the number of ageing people in the county. If Exeter had become a unitary authority, my constituents and those in other parts of rural Devon would have been significantly worse off.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Lady seems to be making my point for me, which is that Exeter and Norwich have been the milch cows for rural Devon and Norfolk. That was denied by Devon county council all the way through the process, but she is making the point extremely well today.

Anne-Marie Morris: I do not accept that. They have not been milch cows. I do not deny that Exeter is an important part of the Devon community, but I believe that we need wealth to be generated throughout Devon. We cannot look only at Exeter. I do not think that that detracts from my point that the rest of Devon would simply become worse off if Exeter became a unitary authority.
	There are a number of things on which my constituents and, I suspect, other Devon constituents would prefer £40 million to be spent. A challenge is presented by our railway along the coast: we need funds to be make it viable, and it is crucial to the viability of tourism in my constituency. I think that my constituents would like the bypass-the A380-to be finally completed, after 50 years of battling. They would also like the flood problem to be sorted out. In Teignmouth, I am currently battling to try to ensure that the flood prevention scheme proceeds. Notwithstanding what was said about flooding earlier, Opposition Members may recall that the Labour party proposed capital cuts of 50%, but the cuts that we have proposed are considerably smaller, and I am therefore hopeful that my friends in Teignmouth will get their scheme. Our water bills are 25% higher than water bills anywhere else in the country, and some of this money could be usefully spent on rectifying an injustice that has existed for many years.
	I do not think that unitary status will be in the interests of Devon or of the country as a whole, but as the money simply is not there, the question becomes inappropriate in any event. I therefore support the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: This is a rather strange debate. We are discussing a Bill with which it appears to be unnecessary to proceed, and which is being defended on grounds that seem far from anything relating to the reality of what occurred with the applications for unitary status. Indeed, it is being defended by the Secretary of State on the basis of what was, in fact, a series of spurious claims about costs and various other elements. It provides for the retention on the statute book of the 1997 legislation enabling unitary status applications to be received by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said, in typically colourful language-clearly it was a metaphor, or he would have been arrested-that there was a pistol in his desk which he would take to anyone who dared to suggest to him that the democratic structures of local authorities might be changed in favour of local people's wishes.
	Even stranger is the Secretary of State's argument about value for money. He suggested that one conclusion of a consultant's analysis of local government in general might be that one of the impediments to really good value for money was the number of councillors making decisions, holding meetings and incurring expenses as a result. He implied that local government would become much more efficient in terms of value for money-if that is the sole criterion-if local councillors were abolished, along with any local concerns about their election, and councils were replaced by a series of local authorities run by commissars. I do not think that any Member present would be particularly happy with that outcome-I imagine that they would want local councillors to run local authorities-but as soon as it is decided that local councillors should run local authorities, the question arises: what kind of authorities should those be?
	To say that in the light of those value-for-money considerations, the whole question of who wants what kind of local government to act in their interests in particular areas is irrelevant, is fundamentally to miss the point of what local government is about. It certainly misses the point in terms of the Conservative party's claim that it is now the party of localism. That would be so even if the arguments about the financing of the authorities that we are discussing were not as finely balanced as they have been.
	The Secretary of State's claim that unitary status would cost £40 million ought to be withdrawn by the end of the afternoon. It is grossly misleading, and a shameful defence of the Government's proposals. Almost all the money would be recouped within five years, and there would be savings thereafter. Even if there were a financial argument, however, it would be trumped by arguments about local accountability, and about the purpose of councillors and local democracy.

Keith Simpson: This is not the hon. Gentleman's fault, but I do not think that he participated in any of the earlier debates on this subject. Many of them were held in Westminster Hall. I suggest that he read the evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), a senior member of the Public Accounts Committee, who said that all the arguments about the savings that would be made had invariably been substantially wrong.

Alan Whitehead: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but my figures are from the explanatory memorandums to two statutory instruments that were presented to the House-and indeed have been confirmed by figures from the Government. I am at a loss to understand why more weight should be given to certain views on what costs might be than to cost figures that have been deposited in the House for Members to examine. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point was very telling, but even if it had been a little more telling, I do not think that it would have undermined the real question before us, which is how local government can work in the best interests of the people who elect councillors and want them to run services on their behalf.
	Again using colourful language, the Secretary of State snuffed out the ambitions of Norwich, Exeter, and by implication Ipswich, to become unitary authorities in the future. That suggests-I am reminded again of the pistol analogy-an overall and enduring hostility on the part of the Secretary of State and others to the very idea of unitary authorities in the future, although the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 still provides for the possibility.
	The position could have been different if that deep prejudice had not lain behind the decisions that were made. Even the judicial review was clearly based on narrow parts of the overall tests and consultation. The judge concluded that, essentially, the issue was fixable. He said
	"this does not prevent them"
	-the proposals-
	"being put forward for approval after what need only be a short period of consultation."
	His judgment was based not on the grounds that the proposals were irrational, but on narrow grounds relating to the tests before the consultation, and anticipated that the proposals might be presented again. It has been made clear today that they will not be presented again, because of what the Secretary of State and the Government have decided is their view-not the people's view, not the local authorities' view, not councillors' view, but the Government's view-of how local government should be conducted in the future.
	Another strange aspect of the debate is the suggestion that the proposals result from the revolutionary ideas of local authorities that are attempting to break free from counties and move into unknown territory on their own, to the detriment of those counties. In fact the whole history of local government, not just in Norwich and Exeter, but across the country shows that the opposite is the case.
	It is interesting to reflect on the history of county boroughs. As has been mentioned, both Norwich and Exeter have a long history of independent self-governance as local authorities. The 1889 legislation that created the modern local government system introduced the idea of county boroughs; the large number of county boroughs reflected the wishes of people in those cities. The framers of that legislation specifically said that it would be impractical for towns and cities whose local government had previously been independent to be incorporated into counties, which was why the county boroughs were introduced. That was done to ensure that that tradition and that system continued, and residents of cities and towns could exercise unitary self-government within the cradle of the county around them. This is not a new idea that was just dreamed up by the Labour Government; it is historically the way in which local government outside metropolitan areas has been conducted.
	What has happened in local government in relatively recent years is that with the overwhelming approbation of the people living in these towns and cities, there has been a move back towards what is, in essence, a local government structure of county boroughs across the country. Some 85 of the 87 unitary authorities introduced between 1889 and 1965 survived until that date; three of them then became London boroughs. In 1974, 37 of those county boroughs became metropolitan boroughs, and subsequently, particularly in the early 1990s under a Conservative Government, a large number of those became unitary authorities again. Some 24 of the 45 remaining county boroughs became unitary authorities, but 21 did not, and two of the five largest of those are Exeter and Norwich. It was largely a matter of luck that they did not become unitary authorities as a result of that process.
	People with a reasonable memory of local government will recall the hanging commissions that went around the country in 1992 to determine the future of local government, county by county, across England. Commissioners were sent out within those county frameworks to produce independent reports about what the future local government structure would be, and the then Government implemented them. Those reports advanced a variety of different approaches, depending on the view of the commissioner involved.
	Some commissioners produced reports saying, "The county borough is so important to the county that we cannot possibly have it excised from the county, so there must be two-tier local government." On other occasions, the same commissioners sent out to perform the same exercise in the same county said, "The county borough is so important in the county that it must be excised from the county and given back unitary status, because that is logically the right thing to do." In one part of the country a particular commissioner was so enthusiastic about unitary government that he abolished the whole county, and six unitary authorities were produced instead. That commissioner is familiar to many of us in a different guise-as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). A variety of conclusions were reached at that time, which meant, among other things, that Exeter and Norwich did not become unitary authorities because of the accident of who went out to do the report.
	We have heard this afternoon that the people of Norwich and Exeter overwhelmingly support the idea that the long tradition of unitary government in those towns should be restored.

Keith Simpson: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the factual evidence for that view? What polling has been done? Has a local referendum been held?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman will recall hearing earlier this afternoon about the results of various polls conducted in those local areas, the results of consultations with councillors and the information that came from various bodies within the local authorities, all of which pointed to the idea that the people in those areas strongly supported the idea that their authority should become unitary.

Ben Bradshaw: rose-

Brandon Lewis: rose-

Alan Whitehead: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend first.

Ben Bradshaw: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend here. The city council in Exeter commissioned an independent MORI poll-the only scientific poll conducted during this process-and it was overwhelming in favour of unitary status. I would be very surprised if a local newspaper that has its ear as close to the ground as the  Norwich Evening News would have misjudged the mood of the people of Norwich by giving such strong support to Norwich's unitary bid.

Alan Whitehead: I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis).

Brandon Lewis: I defer to the right hon. Gentleman's expertise on the polling in Exeter, but the comments made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and others about Norwich did not give evidence of any polls; they just referred to the feeling of the people. As far as I am aware-I would be happy for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) to show me otherwise-no clear polling was done in Norwich, other than the work done by the Local Government Boundary Commission, which showed that 85% of the people wanted the status quo, 10% wanted a county unitary authority and only 3% wanted a Norwich answer. Yet that is what the Labour Government opted for.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has neglected to listen carefully to the points made so far in this debate, and to the idea of a variety of consultation devices to find out what people want in various areas. As has been said this afternoon, the councillors of all parties in Norwich overwhelmingly supported the aim of Norwich having unitary status. The idea that there was little or no support for this in either area is not sustainable.
	However, it is true, as has been emphasised, that some members in county areas do not welcome the idea of unitary authorities in cities and towns within their county area. I cannot say that I am particularly surprised at that notion. Indeed, one issue that arose during those local government reorganisation consultations and discussions in the early 1990s was that counties, by and large, did not want those cities and towns to be removed from their overall county structure, and made strong representations to that effect. To say that some people in county areas might say that it would be nice to have their county council running a particular city or town is not surprising. That does not in any way undermine the central concern, which was reflected as long ago as 1889, that those towns and cities should have unitary status because of their particular position within those county areas, and the importance on a regional and sub-regional basis of many of those local authorities.
	I speak as a former leader of a large city council when it was not a unitary authority, and I have been the MP representing that same city when it has had a unitary authority. I can say that the differences are enormous-for example, in terms of those cities having responsibility for their own services and their own arrangements and being able, among other things, to put to the people that simple arrangement that appears to have been missed in this afternoon's debate. The Secretary of State has stated on this occasion and on other occasions that people do not particularly want to concern themselves with the structure of local government, but just want services to be provided. In a unitary authority, that is palpably the case. One authority is providing the services, looking after the city or town, and it is close to the people in that respect and accountable to the people as a result of what it does.

Ben Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the fact that Southampton's unitary status was restored in no way impacted negatively on the performance of Hampshire? In fact, Hampshire is one of the highest performing county councils in England. We could say the same for Swindon and Wiltshire. The myth perpetrated by the Government and by the opponents of unitary status for cities-that somehow the counties suffer-is not supported by the evidence. On the contrary, they tend to do better.

Alan Whitehead: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the counties do better in many ways, because the concerns of a particular city, freestanding within a far less urban environment, are focused on that city, and the concerns of the less urban environment are focused in the county council. It is certainly true that after some slight ill feeling, and attempts to foist less up-to-date computers on the unitary authority when the equipment was divided up, the arrangements between Hampshire and Southampton have been very good. They have worked very well, and as my right hon. Friend correctly points out, the county has prospered in its way, and the city has prospered in its way, as a result of unitary status.
	I know that the Secretary of State will have his way this afternoon. He ought to hang his head in shame because of the fundamental contradiction between what he says about localism and what he is proposing to do this afternoon, but he will undoubtedly have his way. My concern, among others, is that we should not, as a result of this vindictive and spiteful early legislation, lose the idea that unitary local government-particularly in cities and towns outside metropolitan areas-is palpably a good thing for those cities and towns, and ought to be pursued.
	It is interesting, in terms of the historical full circle that we might come in the end, that the mechanism in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is essentially the same as the one introduced in the local government legislation of 1889. If a local authority wanted to make the case that it should become a unitary authority, that could be done without a huge upheaval, with the whole of local government being reorganised and commissioners going up and down the country.
	Indeed, between 1889 and the present a number of local authorities became county boroughs over the years, without a crisis in local government or a series of legislative measures going through this House on local government as a whole. That was a method of securing the way in which people in those areas wished to be self-governed. That is at the heart of this subject, and that is what is being denied this afternoon. I hope that as a result of some of the corrections of the myths put forward in this afternoon's debates, we can concentrate our attention on what is best for local government, not on what is best for particular people's opinions on particular days about how they would like to see local government run.

Brandon Lewis: I fully support the Secretary of State's comments when he referred to this whole debacle as a horror story. It was interesting to listen to Opposition Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Whereas the Secretary of State described a horror story, their description of what happened with the unitary authorities until the formation of the coalition Government was a romantic story. Looking back at what has happened, it almost seems like a farce to me.
	Over the entire period, going back to 2006-I will focus on Norfolk in particular-this has been more than a case of Norwich having a fantastic offer that everybody wanted, with this coalition Government being the first to stand in the way of that. In all that time, I have never heard a single resident, surprisingly enough-and I have knocked on doors in Great Yarmouth and in Norwich, when I was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith)-ever say, "Please, will you give us a unitary authority? Will you please have local government reorganisation in Norfolk?" In fact, there was huge frustration.
	The argument was not simply whether we should have a Norwich unitary authority. It started back in 2006, with people looking at different options. That created confusion in Norfolk, with people considering whether Great Yarmouth, my constituency, should be linked in with Waveney, creating Yartoft, with an east-west divide in Norfolk, or whether there should be a full unitary option. There was complete chaos, and the finance never added up.
	What concerned me from the beginning, quite apart from the clunking top-down approach of, "This is what will happen; there will be unitary," which was the clear message that authorities were being given, was the expense. One chief executive in Norfolk said to me that their estimate in 2008 was that their senior officers were spending 40% of their time talking to other officers in other authorities about plans for unitary and about all the various different plans. We should consider that in light of the number of senior officers there are across Norfolk, and consider whether they were spending anywhere near the time estimated by that chief executive.
	Officer time and money are not included in the figures. Money has already been wasted over the past three or four years because it has been spent on looking at plans and organisation rather than delivering front-line services. I dread to think what the cost comes to, let alone the financial chaos that will no doubt be delivered on the people of Norwich, who have to pick up the tab for Norwich city council's amazing decision to spend about £90,000, as advertised, on an implementation officer before it even got the go-ahead for the change. I was horrified to find out when I was on a BBC show with the leader of Norwich city council that the leader was getting an allowance of £12,000 to £15,000 on top of his leader's allowance to chair an implementation group. I do not know what the other members of the group were getting or what that was costing, but it seems to me that an amazing amount of money has already been wasted.
	To say that that would have been a good decision based on the savings of £6.5 million from 2015 onwards sums up, to me, the problems that we now have, looking at the figures and the implementation costs referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), which are about £40 million. The savings would have started, had they been delivered, in 2015-16. We all know that the previous Government spent a lot of time spending money now in the hope that it would come later, and we have seen the economic mess that that got us into, with the deficit that we, and local government in particular, are now having to deal with because of the mess that the old Government left behind. We now have to pick up the pieces economically.
	It is a clear sign of what the Labour party thinks of Norfolk that it seems to want to focus only on Norwich. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) rightly says, the reality is that a decision made for Norwich has an impact on the whole of Norfolk, and the whole of Norfolk had a view on this. The people of Norfolk were asked about unitary status and, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, 85% wanted the status quo, 10% wanted a county council in Norfolk and only 3% wanted a Norwich unitary authority. In my experience, people on the streets did not want a unitary authority. When the Boundary Commission referred back to it, it did not want a Norwich unitary authority. The House of Lords had concerns about it and the permanent secretary at the Department had concerns about it, yet the Secretary of State in the Labour Government at the time went ahead with it anyway. That seems to me a clear example of ignoring local views.
	The view that the Labour party has of Norfolk, saying that the only thing that matters is Norwich, is probably a clear example of why there are no Labour Members left in Norfolk. Constituents and businesses in Great Yarmouth have the opportunity for economic growth because of measures in the Budget, with the outer harbour and renewable energy. I am sure that businesses throughout Norwich, in places such as Hethel, which is not in Norwich, and King's Lynn, would take the view that they have a great economic offer to make to Norfolk.
	It seems, from beginning to end, that this has already been a costly exercise, but it would be interesting to know just how much money local government has lost in Norfolk on spending time researching this matter. Quite apart from the money that has been wasted on implementation committees and officers, it does not seem appropriate to focus on Norwich, where we have a local authority that has made some dubious and questionable decisions recently about its services with Connaught, with Greyhound Opening and with housing. That does not seem to me to be a fit authority to be used as an example of what could be a perfect unitary authority. In fact, it seems the antithesis of that. The best thing that can happen to Norfolk is for this sorry saga-this horror tale of horror tales-to be put to an end once and for all. I fully support the Bill.

Gavin Shuker: In cases such as this one, it is important that we come back to first principles, and those first principles strike me as being quite straightforward: do the people of Norwich and Exeter want this, is it rational that they should want it, and is it appropriate for unitary status to be conferred?
	Norwich is the closest city to me of those that are under discussion. Does it want this? Yes, it does. Norwich city council currently has 34 Labour, Green and Lib Dem members, and they were in favour. Only the Tories, with five seats, were against. Earlier, the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) claimed that the two seats of Norwich South and Norwich North changed hands at the election because the Labour Government had been pushing to try unitary status there. He should have more faith in his colleagues who represent those constituencies. They represent the new generation of MPs, and I am sure they would attribute their success to much broader reasons to do with their appeal.

Keith Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an example, either orally or in written evidence, in this place of the former MP for Norwich North, Dr Ian Gibson, coming out in favour of the unitary proposal?

Gavin Shuker: Dr Gibson is no longer a Member of this House so I do not see the relevance of the question. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that when I was campaigning in the elections that were forced as a result of the Secretary of State's decision, many of the people to whom I spoke were very much in favour of the proposal.

Ben Bradshaw: It may help if it is explained to Members that the Norwich North constituency straddles both Norwich city and Broadland district councils, so it is not surprising that the Member for that constituency has divided loyalties. The Norwich South constituency is wholly within the city boundary, and its MPs-both the Liberal Democrat Member whom we are looking forward to hearing from shortly, and certainly the former Member-have always supported unitary status, as, of course, have the vast majority of the democratically elected councils. As they supported this, why does the Conservative party, which often extols the virtues of local democracy and representation, not trust them?

Gavin Shuker: I completely agree.

Keith Simpson: Let me explain the flaw in these arguments. What I am about to say does not necessarily apply to Exeter, but the only way in which Norwich could get unitary status and also fulfil all the economic criteria-one problem is that Secretaries of State have changed their minds about that-is to enlarge Norwich and bring in all the outer suburbs, including large parts of my constituency. They did not try to do that for the simple reason that the majority of the people there were totally against it, and they were totally against it because of the complete and utter incompetence of Labour-led Norwich city council. Therefore, even their economic criteria did not add up.

Gavin Shuker: Much as I am enjoying this conversation with the hon. Gentleman, I should point out again that he claimed the only reason why the two Members were elected to the House was because of the supposed opposition to the Labour Government's strategy for introducing unitary status. If he wants to talk about election results we should talk about those of last month: in Norwich, the Lib Dems were down one and the Tories were down one, while both the Greens and Labour were up one. If we want to draw lessons from the electorate, we could begin with those results.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Shuker: May I first explain that my point is that if we want to draw conclusions from election results, there is contradictory evidence, which is why I want to return to first principles?

Brandon Lewis: That last comment is interesting, but I wanted to say that I was actually out on the streets in Norwich during a recent by-election there- [Interruption.] Yes, I was in Norfolk, out on the streets, and when I talked to people on the doorsteps I found a complete lack of interest in the elections. That was because they were frustrated about what the last Government had put them through, and pleased that that was over and done with. That was probably part of the reason for the low turnouts. We are talking about what people want, and we therefore have to refer to the only figures that have been published, which show that 85% of people want the status quo and only 3% want Norwich city to have a unitary authority.

Gavin Shuker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what area was covered by that poll?

Brandon Lewis: As I said, it was the area that is entirely affected by the topic of this debate-Norfolk-which also includes authorities that are democratically elected.

Gavin Shuker: There is, of course, a variety of opinion in the area that will be affected by the changes. The Secretary of State's role in this respect is to decide which of the various different criteria are met and to make a judgment.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Gavin Shuker: Of course; I am feeling very polite.

Brandon Lewis: I will leave the hon. Gentleman alone after this intervention, if I possibly can. He makes the point that it is for the Secretary of State to make a judgment and I entirely agree. Surely, therefore, the Secretary of State should take notice of the opinions of the people who said no, the local authorities who all-bar one, surprisingly-said no, the House of Lords, which showed concern, the permanent secretary, who also showed concern, and the Boundary Commission, which said no. After he has taken note, the Secretary of State should then also say no.

Gavin Shuker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of both the former and the current Norwich South MP, both of whom were in favour of the change. If we agree about local decision making and local representatives knowing their community best, we need to start with their comments. Indeed, I am looking forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright). I hope there will not be the screeching noise of a U-turn. I do not know what the whipping operation is like for Government Members, and I have no desire to find out, but I could imagine that, possibly, on a long train trip up to their constituencies the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) might have put a friendly arm around the hon. Member for Norwich South and talked about this issue.

Stephen Pound: Steady on!

Gavin Shuker: Well, we are in the era of the new politics. I am genuinely looking forward to hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich South, however, for whom I have a huge amount of respect.
	On a national level, we need to ask this question: why would these people want this change? Government Members were at one time very much in favour of unitary status. Lib Dem councillors in Norwich wanted this, of course, and initiated the beginnings of the change, and the Tory party initiated getting on for 100 unitary authorities in their last spell in government. We can have an argument about whether the people want this but it certainly seems that the evidence on that is not clear, yet it is clear that the elected representatives in Norwich do want it.
	The second question is: is it rational? The Department's own impact assessment showed that the most expensive option for Norwich was the status quo. Let us consider some comments made in another place-a fine place, I have heard, and one that I quite enjoy dropping into every now and again. Lord McKenzie of Luton noted that the High Court judgment had concluded that
	"the Secretary of State was entitled to reach the view he did on the merits of the proposal and that it was not irrational."
	He also said:
	"in an arrogant, dictatorial and brutal way"
	the judgment of the Secretary of State
	"shut out Exeter and Norwich from the opportunity to become unitary councils-an outcome for which there is genuine local appetite".-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1802-05.]
	We might also look at the judicial review that was initiated. We can see that the appropriate orders were quashed, but the judge said that
	"this does not prevent them being put forward for approval after what need only be a short period of consultation."
	There was no wide-ranging set of criteria under which the orders were thrown out. The judge clearly considered that aspects were rational, but he chose to highlight the short period of consultation needed. As a result, the orders were quashed-but they need not be by the Secretary of State.
	Should a place such as Norwich be allowed to become a unitary authority? I speak for the nearest bastion of red in the east of England, although admittedly it is about two and a half hours away, which I feel acutely when I travel throughout East Anglia-the lovely place I am from. However, Luton became a unitary authority in 1997, which is a decision from which we have clearly benefitted. It is important that Luton's people are able to elect local representatives who will stand up and speak for the areas they choose to represent, and who understand the local needs. There is a vast disparity in the Luton area between the types of areas, houses and villages, and between the feelings that people have about their area.
	That is the point. Unitary authorities that are small enough to respond to the needs and views of its people will be best able and best placed to make the decisions that respond to the needs of the residents. If a place such as Luton is allowed to have that right-a right, coincidentally, that was bestowed on it under the previous Tory Government-I do not see why Norwich and Exeter should not also have the right to make their own decisions in their own ways. Norwich has a population of about 135,000; Luton is slightly larger, with about 200,000 people, but we are a mere borough. I love Luton borough council as much as the next man, but I do not understand why the great cities of Norwich and Exeter, with their shining beacon status as cities, should not be allowed to take responsibility for their own affairs. I look forward to hearing the arguments put by Government Members for why they should not.
	We in Luton would, of course, like to become a city-indeed, we have a city status bid in the file-and we would like all cities to have the opportunity to put forward their cases, as they did under the previous Government, but that right has been quashed under this Secretary of State. Why can these places not have their freedoms? Why can the voices of the local people not be heard? Why can the spirit of the judicial review not be followed through? I believe that the Secretary of State is a roadblock to reform, and I stand with the people of Norwich and Exeter.

James Morris: I represent a constituency in the west midlands, which is some distance from my hon. Friends in Norwich, Members might wonder why I want to contribute to this debate. I intend to be brief-although I hope not in the spirit of the brevity of the Bill itself.
	This Bill deals with some important principles. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is no longer in his place, said that he found the debate "strange". I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members are trying to argue that they are the defenders of localism, given that their whole time in government was predicated on one of the largest centralisations of power in Whitehall and away from local government; on an obsession with regional government and structures, and with the re-organisation of local government; and on the imposition of structures. We need to get away from that if we are truly to move towards a localist future.
	The restructuring that the Bill, which I support, is trying to prevent was typical of the approach of the previous Government. They were obsessed with top-down reorganisations. I think it was the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) who kicked off this whole debate-as if we needed to have these top-down reorganisations. The requirement that parliamentary approval be sought for the restructurings was introduced during the death throes of the last Parliament in a way that was aggressive and an imposition, and these claims about potential cost savings are entirely spurious.
	Rather than trying to impose top-down reorganisations on local government, which were such a feature of the previous Government, we need to embrace the diversity of local government-where county, district, town and parish councils all have a vital role to play. We need to encourage collaboration across different areas and at different levels of local government in the delivery of effective services. We need to do that because we need to achieve back-office efficiencies to reduce costs in local government; to reduce bureaucracy at the heart of local government; to re-engineer some of the processes; to share management costs so that we do not have so much duplication across local government; and to encourage local authorities to work in partnership in order to deliver services at the appropriate level. But we do not need to be obsessed with top-down reorganisations arranged from the centre.
	The whole thrust of the last Government's approach to local government policy was to be obsessed with these top-down solutions, so I welcome the Secretary of State's introduction of this Bill. We need a completely different approach. We need a bottom-up approach that, as I said, encourages local authorities at all different levels to play an active and vital role in their local communities, because they are close to the concerns of local people. There are principles at stake here. The previous Government tried to introduce this top-down reorganisation for directly political reasons-in order to divide different areas of local government.
	We need to bring an end to costly restructuring, so I welcome the introduction of the Bill; we need to focus on collaboration to achieve great efficiencies and cost-savings in local government, which are vital when we are having to make cuts in local government expenditure as a result of the previous Government's mismanagement of the public finances; and we need to move towards much more effective and democratically accountable delivery at a local level. That is why I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Simon Wright: It seems that my contribution to this debate has been widely trailed by Opposition Members. I thank them for the build-up. The organisation of local government is an important debate to my constituents in Norwich. As a supporter of the principle of unitary councils, both in general terms and specifically for Norwich, I am sorry that we are where we are. I take the view that unitary government is clearer and more accountable to the public than two-tier local government, and that, in Norwich's case, it could have enhanced localism by giving people more of a say over the services currently delivered by Norfolk county council.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) quoted me as saying that I am a promoter of the democratic benefits of unitary councils. That is true. However-let me be clear about this, so that there is no mistake-the reason why we are where we are is that the process embarked on by the previous Government turned into a complete and utter shambles. While supporting unitary Norwich, I have always stated that I had concerns throughout the process. It was a process plagued throughout by legal challenges. It saw councils engage in pitched battles against one another, and sums of public money poured into public relations campaigns on all sides of the debate. It was a process that failed to engaged with the public.
	Most people seemed either oblivious or apathetic to what was going on, or to the consequences of reorganisation-it was hardly localism in action. The debate was confined largely to politicians. We have heard a lot today about what the people in Norwich allegedly think, but they have never actually been formally involved in the process. The idea that people cast their vote for candidates on the basis of their views on local government reorganisation is perhaps the biggest red herring that I have heard today. However, it was a process that even the boundary committee seemed confused about.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he would have won his seat if he had opposed Norwich's unitary status?

Simon Wright: It would have made absolutely no difference, because during the election campaign not a single person raised the issue with me.

Ben Bradshaw: In which case, why did the hon. Gentleman support unitary status? Was he reflecting the views of his constituents, contrary to what the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) has suggested?

Simon Wright: I expressed my views because, when one gets a call from the local newspaper, it is a good idea to answer. Of course I was going to offer my support for the principle of a unitary Norwich.
	None the less, as I began to say, the boundary committee seemed confused about the process, too, and that led to legal challenges over its failure to produce more than one alternative scheme in its original proposals.
	In 2006, the previous Government invited councils to apply for unitary status, and Lib-Dem-controlled Norwich submitted a bid, sensing an opportunity for the city to have a greater say over its own destiny. The bid was deemed at the end of 2007 to require advice from the boundary committee, which reported back in 2008, but following a series of legal challenges by district councils and the county council in a complex chronology of events, the boundary committee finally advised in December that a single unitary council for the whole of Norfolk plus Lowestoft would deliver the outcomes specified by the Government's criteria for reorganisation, and that the original proposal of a unitary Norwich city should not be implemented.
	In February of this year, Communities and Local Government Ministers announced that they felt the boundary committee's recommendations did not in fact meet the necessary criteria and, furthermore, that they would be going back to the original proposal of a unitary Norwich. So, with a general election coming up, the Labour Government performed a complete U-turn on its previous assessment of Norwich's bid. That was the death-bed conversion of a dying Government. Despite being a supporter of a unitary Norwich, I feared at the time that it was a convenient political fix to satisfy Norwich's pro-unitary Labour council in the run-up to a general election.
	A quick fix is certainly not what Norwich needs for the long term. We have to be 100% convinced that a model for unitary government in Norwich not only provides the benefits of localism, but is sustainable for the city and the rest of Norfolk. The previous Government's quick-fix solution in February would have left Norwich on its existing city council boundaries, yet evidence from the Audit Commission suggests that the most effective unitary bodies are larger in size and have more widely drawn boundaries. The Government's models did not address the boundary issue.
	Norwich city council's bid showed evidence of efficiencies, but another problem with the process was the volume of conflicting evidence that led to different conclusions. Although some efficiency savings can be made by going unitary, their extent is questionable, as is whether many savings can be made through improved joint working and shared services under two-tier and cross-district working. Progress on the latter has perhaps suffered locally in Norfolk, because councils were so unsure of their own futures until very recently. Efficiency savings, while an important consideration, have never been the most compelling argument for unitary government.
	The orders laid in February by the previous Government to implement a unitary Norwich also included a provision to delay the scheduled elections in May for Norwich city council by extending councillors' terms of office, thereby affecting 13 council seats in the city. As we have heard, Norfolk county council issued judicial review proceedings challenging the Government's decision, and on 5 July this year the High Court quashed the orders in their entirety, including the extension of the terms of office for councillors. Thirteen councillors, many of whom had served with great distinction and for many years in public office, were simply stripped of their positions with immediate effect through no fault of their own. They did not deserve that, and some chose not to re-stand in the subsequent by-elections-a real loss to the city of Norwich of some fine public servants.
	I am sorry that Norwich will not have unitary government this time. I hope that we will be able to look again at the issue and learn from the mistakes that were made. The process that the previous Government embarked on led to divisions and disappointments, and I feel a sense of deep regret, as well as anger, at the ill-thought-out process, which involved so much money and effort, promised so much in return, but delivered so little. After so much acrimony, it is time to move on. We will put the matter on hold for now, but I hope that we can return to it.

Chris Williamson: Our very clear view is that the Bill is misguided and should never have come before the House. We heard the Secretary of State, in his customary pejorative fashion, criticise the measures to create unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter as a "worthless legacy". "The public want the council to get on with more important matters," he said, and he referred to "zombie orders", but the fact is that the Secretary of State himself, with the massive cuts that he has endorsed, is creating zombie councils. He has singularly failed to stand up for local authorities and for the people who, throughout the length and breadth of the country, rely on the services that councils provide.
	The Secretary of State talked about giving councillors the power to decide matters for themselves, and we support that, but the unitary proposal had cross-party support in Norwich and Exeter, so if he genuinely believes that councillors should be given the power to decide for themselves, why on earth has he brought this Bill before the House?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman refers to cross-party support in Norwich, but for clarification I must note that he cannot be referring to the Conservative party, because Conservative members of the council were very much against the unitary proposal from the very beginning.

Chris Williamson: The members from the hon. Gentleman's party in Norwich were pretty irrelevant, actually, to-[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] They were irrelevant to the extent that they represent- [ Interruption ] -if the Secretary of State will allow me-a rump in that authority. Let us be clear about that.

Bob Neill: If the hon. Gentleman regards the issue of party support and the views of councillors as the sole determining factor, can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), when she was Secretary of State, rejected exactly the proposal with which we are concerned because it did not meet the required criteria?

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman is not listening to me. I did not say that that was the sole determining factor at all, and he should listen a little more carefully. I know that this is one of my first appearances at the Dispatch Box, but if he listened more carefully he might learn a thing or two.
	Labour Members very much support the benefits of unitary status for local authorities.

Ben Bradshaw: Perhaps the Conservative councillors in Norwich, who after all represent only the fourth party on the city council, did not support unitary status because, unlike the brave Conservative councillors in Exeter, they succumbed to the bullying from Conservative central office and from the Conservative county council?

Chris Williamson: In my experience, and from the anecdotal information that I have heard from Conservative colleagues, Conservative central office certainly does have a reputation for bullying, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend makes a very significant and relevant point.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, set out our support for unitary authorities. We believe in the benefits of unitary councils, but so did the Conservative party, as my right hon. Friend said. The Liberal Democrats believed in them, too, so what has changed? Why the Damascene conversion? In the 1990s it was perfectly acceptable for the Conservative Government of the day to create numerous unitary authorities, yet now the Secretary of State says that there will be no more unitary councils or local government reorganisation, in spite of its ineffective elements whereby, as a result of the two-tier system, people often do not understand which local authority is responsible for what. It is a very inefficient way of delivering services.
	Indeed, as in the case of Norwich and Exeter and, I suspect, other parts of the country, too, local people, councillors and businesses want a unitary authority providing the services with all the efficiency that goes with that status. Such local authorities have the ability to shape the place that they represent, to bring new inward investment and to create jobs and prosperity for the people in their area. The Secretary of State is riding roughshod over the wishes of not only the general public, but his own party's councillors in Exeter. They have made their views very clear, but in an example of the bullying typical of the Conservative party when its members step out of line, their wishes have been disregarded, and those in other parts of the country have been sat on to keep quiet.

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: I am conscious of the time available, but I give way.

Eric Pickles: I think we have a little bit of time, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was wondering about Ian Gibson, a very distinguished Member of this House, who was deselected. Was that not bullying because the leadership did not like what he had to say?

Chris Williamson: The Secretary of State is really scraping the barrel. If that is the best he can come up with, it demonstrates the paucity of his argument.
	The hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) talked about democracy and said that there would be "no advantage"-I think those were his words-to local people of a unitary council. I wonder what planet he is living on, because clearly there is a significant benefit to local people from a unitary local authority, and it is clear that the people in Exeter and in Norwich want a unitary authority. There is a streak of gerrymandering running all the way through the Conservative party: it wants to gerrymander constituencies across the country and to gerrymander in local government. The views of local people-

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: I have taken a few interventions. I want to make some progress.
	The other important fact that the Government are ignoring is that Exeter and Norwich are significant economic drivers-the economic powerhouses of their local areas. If they were freed and allowed to speak up for the people they represent, they would be in a far, far better position not only to improve the services they deliver, but to bring in new inward investment to create the jobs that will be desperately required as a result of the horrendous cuts that the Secretary of State has sanctioned, which we heard about only yesterday.

Keith Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: I want to make a little more progress and deal with another point that the hon. Gentleman made. I will give way in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Broadland betrayed a lack of understanding of local government when he said that the creation of unitary authorities in Norwich and Exeter would result in two police forces in each area. Clearly, that is utter nonsense. Let us get that on the record. He said that the move was supported by the former Secretary of State because it would generate some political advantage for the Labour party. Again, that is utter nonsense. It seems to me that, in making that remark, the hon. Gentleman is being economical with the truth. If someone is economical with the truth often enough, sometimes people start to believe it.

Brandon Lewis: rose-

Keith Simpson: rose-

Chris Williamson: The hon. Member for Broadland wanted to intervene and I give way to him.

Keith Simpson: I am thoroughly enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech and looking at the expression on the face of his Whip. He talks about gerrymandering and various other matters. The main reason the then Secretary of State turned down Norwich's original bid was that, on its current boundaries, it did not meet all the economic and regeneration criteria, yet, four years later, it was accepted. Can he explain why an argument that had been knocked down was accepted by a new Secretary of State four years later?

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman wants to fight the battles of yesteryear. A number of changes occurred, not the least of which was that a better case was made by the authorities in question. In addition, there was a significant change in the economic conditions facing the country and, as I have pointed out, the cities are excellent economic drivers.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: I do not want to give way to too many more Members, because I am conscious of the time. I will be told off by the Whips if I go over my time and it would not be fair to take all the time left.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) made an excellent speech in which he set out the case extremely well. He referred to the Secretary of State saying that he supported "localism, localism, localism". Of course, in reality, the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to localism is sadly lacking. If this is not about localism, I do not know what is. How on earth can the Secretary of State make such statements and claim that he is the tribune of the people and supports localism, and then deny the wishes of local people and their elected representatives? That is the very antithesis of localism. It is clear to me that, far from supporting democratic localism, the Secretary of State supports a more autocratic, top-down approach to local government.

Brandon Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman just referred to the amount of time he has left. Will you clarify how much time he has left to take interventions on the statements he is making?

Nigel Evans: This debate would have to finish at 6 pm, but it is always up to each and every individual Member whether they take interventions.

Chris Williamson: I am sure that the House would love to listen to me speak for the next four hours, but I will not carry on that long.
	The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) let the cat out of the bag when she said that the cities are in a better position to attract grants-additional funding streams. It is clear from that statement that the current system of local government in those areas means that cities are able to bring in grants-often because they have a larger proportion of disadvantaged people living in their boundaries-but that that money is being siphoned off into other parts of the county and is not going to those who need it the most. That lets the cat out of the bag and I am sure that the Secretary of State had his head in his hands when the hon. Lady made that comment.
	The hon. Lady said that she wanted the county structure to stay in place because she wanted to get funding for the A380. I do not know whether she was in the House yesterday or whether she listened to the Chancellor's statement, but the chances of getting funding for any new road schemes are pretty minimal to say the least.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Chris Williamson: No I will not give way; I am sorry, but I want to make some progress.  [ Interruption. ] Will hon. Members calm down and listen for a moment?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) absolutely demolished the Government's arguments about value for money, because this is about no such thing. Unitary councils provide far better value for money because the unitary system avoids duplication, means that local people understand far better the provision of services and, as I have said, brings in new inward investment and is a good economic driver for the community.
	The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) spent about five minutes denying the self-evident facts about the benefits of unitary authorities-they are easier to understand, cost less and provide a better governance model.

Brandon Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Williamson: No; I am going to carry on.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members should calm down for a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has first-hand experience of the benefits of the unitary council that was created by a Conservative Government back in 1997. During the recent by-election, he had the opportunity to speak to local people in Norwich and it is clear from what he said that those people had no truck with the Government's proposals to deny their right to self-determination.
	The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) tried, in spite of the evidence, to portray the Conservatives as the defenders of localism, but that could not be further from the truth. He suggested that Labour has no business trying to claim that title, but we have demonstrated, through our period in government and our commitment to local government, that we are the party that genuinely deserves the crown when it comes to supporting localism. We have supported democratic localism: a Labour Government initiated the whole neighbourhood working and neighbourhood regeneration approach and supported local government with significant funding streams. The hon. Gentleman has the temerity to lecture us about top-down reorganisation when he is supporting the biggest ever top-down reorganisation of the national health service since it was created by the Labour party more than 60 years ago!
	Finally, let me address the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), who wants to have his cake and eat it. He said that he was sorry that we are where we are but went on to extol the virtues of unitary councils. He supports the unitary council in Norwich but he has clearly been leaned on by his Conservative masters to dance to the Tory tune-as the Liberal Democrats have done ever since they signed up to the coalition agreement. The Bill belies an underlying authoritarian streak in the Secretary of State: it is not so much localism, localism, localism as diktat, diktat, diktat.

Bob Neill: Perhaps I should start by congratulating my opposite number, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), on having achieved the remarkable feat, in his first speech at the Dispatch Box in a debate of this kind-although we have addressed some previous business on a less contentious matter-of having managed to string together more clichés than I have ever heard in a single speech. He did so without any visible trace of irony whatever; that is what I find really impressive. I can see now that the route to advancement on the Opposition Front Bench is to adopt that well-known school of advocacy, "If in doubt bluster, keep your head down, bluster a bit more and wave your arms around a bit." That is not so easy to achieve at my height, but if Members see something happening behind the Dispatch Box they will know that I have adopted it.
	This has been a rather short sharp debate, in more ways than one. I suppose it can be said that it has proved that it is possible for a dead cat bounce to have life. [Hon. Members: "Cliché!"] It takes one to know one; I am just checking that hon. Members are still awake. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby North about one thing: in some ways, it is regrettable that we need to have this debate at all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I love coming to the Chamber, but we might have found matters to occupy our time other than having to introduce this Bill and keep hon. Members here.
	It is worth looking at the history, so let me go back, as best I can, to the beginning. It was not all that long ago, although it may have seemed so to hon. Members at some points in the debate. The Bill is necessary to deal with the consequences of a nakedly political and questionable act by the Labour Government in their dying days, in ramming through a measure that they themselves had previously rejected-something that might be regarded as gerrymandering, according to any normal definition, and certainly as one of their ultimate U-turns.
	Back in 2006 local authorities were invited to put forward proposals for unitary authorities. Some of those have been dealt with and have gone through the process. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with those left outstanding at the end of that process. Let me explain why they are outstanding. Exeter and Norwich submitted unitary bids on the basis of their existing boundaries. In July 2007 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)-she still sits on the Opposition Benches, as far as I remember-judged that there was a risk of their bids not being achieved. Indeed, she concluded that Norwich city council's proposal was such that there was "not a reasonable likelihood" of its achieving the outcome specified by the five objective criteria that she had set, particularly the affordability criteria. She then asked for some further advice from the boundary committee.
	The right hon. Lady asked Exeter city council for extra information, which arrived in December, and concluded that its proposal, if implemented, was also unlikely to meet the affordability criteria. Confronted with what might have been a vaguely partisan dilemma, she thought that she would ask the boundary committee to explore the idea of unitaries across the rest of the county, but that did not work either.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said that the public wanted those unitaries. I can speak only for Norfolk and Norwich, where in the only printed consultation the public said no. I still have not heard any Labour Member refer to clear polling other than the published polling, which showed that 85% wanted the status quo, 10% wanted a unitary Norfolk and only 3% wanted a unitary Norwich, which the then Secretary of State took forward anyway. The people said no, and the local councils, except one, said no. The House of Lords had concerns, as did the Joint Committee. The Secretary of State then went ahead. That is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman claimed: it is top-down gerrymandering, whereas this Government are moving forward with true localism and letting the people have their say.

Bob Neill: As I hope I can demonstrate to my hon. Friend in a moment, what caused the previous Government's plans to go awry was the fact that, not liking the results that they were getting, they decided to shift the goalposts at the very last moment-

Stephen Pound: Cliché!

Bob Neill: It was pretty much in extra time, with the referee about to blow the whistle. Then there came the next stage earlier this year, when the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles had bravely walked into the outer darkness-I believe that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) did so at much the same time, but she has returned to bask in the sunlight of the Opposition Front Bench, so clearly does not share her right hon. Friend's opinion now. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), decided that his assessment of the Exeter and Norwich proposals was the same as his predecessor's. However, he decided to do the opposite, concluding that there were compelling reasons, which had never previously been articulated anywhere, to depart from the presumption that a proposal had to meet all five criteria. That decision was ultimately struck down by the courts. That attempt to ram through a change and shift the goalposts in the dying days of a Government is why we are in the present mess.
	The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) is right to say that we need not go into the legitimate debates that we could have about the efficacy or otherwise of unitary authorities, because we have here a classic example of how not to go about a local government reorganisation. That is why we need the Bill-to sort out that mess and put an end to the proposals that, having been struck down by the court, would otherwise have been left hanging in the air at the end of the process.
	I shall say a word about two of the arguments that have been deployed this afternoon, the first of which is the need for local councils to be master in their own house and restore power to what I accept are ancient and proud cities. There is a serious flaw in that argument, which runs through all the Opposition's arguments: the fact that they confuse structures with power. That underlines and sums up the error in their approach to local government. They believe that we should give local authorities power by changing structures, reorganising and calling an authority unitary. On the contrary, we seek to give real power back to local authorities by removing the ring-fencing of centralised grants, providing them with the power of general competence, enabling them to work together collaboratively and removing restrictions on their right and ability to represent their constituents. That difference is a classic demonstration of the Opposition's idea that power is all about tinkering, whereas we think it is actually about giving communities real choices rather than worrying about structures.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for being gracious enough to find time to give way, unlike the Opposition Front Bencher.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have heard an awful lot of figures for savings that can be made from a change to unitary status, the real savings come from not spending money on any reorganisation at all, and instead letting local councils share services, without the on-costs that unitary status brings?

Bob Neill: That is precisely right. I have known the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for a long time, and I admire his record in local government. He is no longer in his place, but I hope he would not take it ill if I said that despite his historical reference back to the times of the county borough changes, things have moved on. The argument now is not about restoring county boroughs but about shared services, collaboration, joint working and driving out costs from the corporate core. Creating small unitaries, as Labour proposed, would not have achieved any of that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he brings me neatly on to the next point that I wished to make.
	There seems to be a misapprehension about the whole issue of value for money and costs. We have always recognised that some savings can be made through restructuring, but the information that the councils supplied in their bids-it is in the impact assessment-showed that there would be set-up costs of £40 million, and that the transition could bring savings of some £39.4 million. However, Labour Members ignore the point that we have repeatedly made, which is set out in the first paragraph of the impact assessment: there is no reason for not making the savings through joint working and shared services-they are well developed in Norfolk, where there is a good shared services agreement, and there are good collaborative arrangements in Exeter-without having to incur the up-front costs of the reorganisation. That is why it is manifestly cheaper not to go down the unitary route. Labour Members conveniently ignored that.
	With all due respect to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), she fell into the fallacy of thinking that structure was the same as power. She did not seem to grasp the fact that one her of predecessors on the Front Bench caused the mess that we are tackling.

Chris Williamson: If structures are so bad, were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many unitary authorities in the 1990s?

Bob Neill: From listening to the hon. Gentleman, I got the impression that unitaries would have become compulsory under a Labour Government. We accept diversity. We believe that if a unitary would cover a small urban area, its impact on the surrounding counties must be taken into account. That aspect is left out of Labour Members' analysis, although several of my hon. Friends raised it, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who effectively shredded the arguments of the right hon. Member for Don Valley.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Neill: Of course; we have all the time in the world.

Chris Williamson: I know we have. I wanted to give the Minister another chance to answer the question. Were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many unitary councils in the 1990s, particularly when many were formed in the teeth of opposition from the county councils- [Interruption.] I can hear the Secretary of State saying, "Don't bother, don't answer," but I would be grateful for a response. The Minister appears to believe that it was wrong for us to try to create unitary authorities in Exeter and Norwich, so were the Conservative Government wrong to create so many in the 1990s? It is a simple question-yes or no?

Bob Neill: I do not think that they were wrong, but although I am always interested in history, I am not a prisoner of it. Since the 1990s local government has developed mature and sophisticated means, which were much less well recognised then, of working jointly across boundaries. It is also worth remembering that several issues, which must be tackled-interestingly, they arise in the case that we are considering-require cross-boundary working. For example, the ambitions for economic growth and development in both Exeter and Norwich involve developing important sites outside the city boundaries. I have been to both cities; I have not simply telephoned. Many of the development sites, which in Exeter stretch towards the airport, involve collaboration with the district councils, which will be the planning authorities, and with the county councils, which will be the highways authorities, in those areas.
	Ernest Newman described extracts from Wagner operas as bleeding chunks, removed from "Tannhäuser" or "Parsifal" to be used at a concert. Taking a city out is extracting a bleeding chunk, disconnecting it from its hinterland. The proposals that Labour Members advocate would be the worst thing for the welfare of the citizens of both cities and counties.

Ben Bradshaw: Why, then, did all the business organisations in Exeter, which also reach outside Exeter, support the city's unitary bid?

Bob Neill: Because they had not realised the extent to which an incoming Conservative Government would encourage and facilitate joint working through creating local enterprise partnerships rather than remote economic development associations, and grant the power and general competence to enable local authorities to set up special purpose vehicles. We can answer the arguments very well, without incurring the costs of reorganisation, which is a distraction at a difficult time.
	I shall skim briefly through the other contributions out of courtesy. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), like several other of my hon. Friends, forcefully made the point about the need to recognise links. To remove considerable elements of the tax base from the two counties and leave sparsely populated areas with a lower tax base but with, as is generally accepted, the higher costs of delivering the full range of services across rural populations, would significantly undermine their ability to deliver quality services in their areas. That is why the views of residents of the surrounding county areas must be taken into account just as much as those of the residents of the cities. The Opposition have been conveniently silent on that subject.

Keith Simpson: On a very important point, I failed to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), but he gave the impression that there was a sharp distinction between the poverty-stricken urban deprivation of Norwich and the wealthy rest of Norfolk. I do not think that he has ever been there. That, of course, is the problem. Labour has no MPs in the area: the nearest one is in Luton. The people of King's Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Thetford would be amazed at such a caricature.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend, who has lived in and around the county pretty much all his life, makes a very well-founded point. I know from when I used to practise as a lawyer in parts of East Anglia that there is real deprivation and difficulty in some of those villages-a fact that seems to be ignored.
	That brings me neatly to thanking the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for his contribution. It was much appreciated, particularly by Government Members. He confirmed that as a Luton MP, he was the nearest Labour MP to Norwich-a mere two and half hours away-which was a wonderful and graphic illustration of the abyss into which the Labour party has fallen. Next time, so that he can strengthen his arguments about Norwich rather than rely on a telephone canvass, we will all club together and get him a day-return fare. He can go there in person, which I hope will help.

Gavin Shuker: If the Government were not increasing rail fares by the retail prices index plus 3%, I would be delighted to go to Norwich.

Bob Neill: There is sometimes an argument for quitting while in front, but the truth is that the hon. Gentleman demonstrates the complete lack of touch that the Opposition have with people in that part of England, which is why they did not understand the point about rural deprivation that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) just made.
	We would rather not have brought the Bill to the House, but it is necessary to undo a mess that was created by our predecessors for reasons of the grossest party venality. That must be put right. They pursued that process for no reason other than to pay off some party debts and settle some party scores. It lacked objectivity and intellectual coherence, so now perhaps the kindest thing to do is to lay it gently to rest.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Local Government Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 4 November 2010.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.- (Robert Neill.)
	 Question agreed to .

HEALTH SERVICES (NORTH-EAST LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Dunne.)

Mike Gapes: It is great a pleasure to begin the Adjournment debate so early in the day. I rushed back to get here in time, and I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) is here, because the future of the NHS in outer north-east London is vital to both of us as constituency MPs, and to residents not only of the London borough of Redbridge, but residents of Barking and Dagenham, who all use the facilities at King George hospital, Ilford, which is in my constituency.
	Those who follow  Hansard closely may have a feeling that this is a case of déjà vu yet again. I introduced a debate in Westminster Hall in December 2006 on the future of King George hospital and a debate in the Chamber in November 2009 on the same subject, and I am here again today. Why is that? We had a consultation process-the misnamed Fit for the Future proposals-launched in 2006, with supposed options that would have led to the scrapping of the accident and emergency department and all elective work at King George hospital. Then we had an independent review by Professor George Alberti that said that the proposals would be clinically unsound. The people behind the proposals, including Heather O'Meara, the then chief executive of the Redbridge primary care trust, were forced to go back to the drawing board, and we thought that we had seen those proposals off. But in 2008-09, they came back. In autumn 2009, we discovered that the new proposals would lead to the loss not-this time-of all the elective work, but of the accident and emergency department, all children's surgery and all births at King George hospital.
	The consultation on the original proposals was launched at a board meeting of the outer London primary care trusts held at Upton Park football ground-as a West Ham United season ticket holder, I feel very uncomfortable about this-in November 2009. Many glossy documents were published, and the whole exercise cost £800,000. One of those documents was called "Health for North-East London: Delivering high quality hospital health service for the people of north-east London". It said that it was a consultation document launched in November 2009 until-or so we were originally told-15 March 2010. That was subsequently extended to 22 March.
	The document gave people all kinds of boxes to tick and options for the future. However, in the summary, on page 39 it had a list of improvements or reductions in services, with only two red crosses, which meant a reduction in services. One was
	"A & E, acute inpatient care for adults and children, complex planned surgery."
	There will be a reduction in services because they are proposing to get rid of the services at King George hospital in the London borough of Redbridge. The other was maternity and birthing services. It was proposed that women could have their antenatal care in Ilford and their postnatal care in Ilford, but they could not actually give birth there.
	I had some doubts about the whole consultation exercise, including the questions being asked and the selection of the subjects, and I refer hon. Members to the debate that I introduced in November 2009 for the details.
	We went through the consultation exercise-I still believe, as I said at the time, that it was as free and fair as a rigged Afghan election-and people sent back their responses. I worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and my friend, the hon. Member for Ilford North, on a cross-party basis, and we went to see the then Health Minister, Mike O'Brien. He was an excellent Minister and is a sad loss to this House. He agreed to come and visit King George hospital with us at the end of the consultation. He said that he understood the deep concern and recognised that tens of thousands of people had signed petitions against these proposals because they had serious concerns about the implications for the future. He agreed to refer the matter to the independent reconfiguration panel of the NHS. Over the next few weeks, the panel looked into the matter, but decided that it was not appropriate for it to intervene. The panel said that the consultation conclusions should be reported and that the process should continue.
	Fair enough, but in July the results of the consultation were revealed to us at a meeting, again at the West Ham United football ground. There were a number of different documents, one of which was a great big analysis by Ipsos MORI of all the boxes that had been ticked, all the replies that had been received and all the different statements that had been sent in by clinicians, individuals, local authorities, LINks-local involvement networks-and various other organisations. In summary, despite the rigged nature of the consultation and the fact that those responsible did not take into account the petitions that I and others had organised-they simply said that petitions had been received, but did not add the figures into the equation-the proposals for maternity and accident and emergency were rejected by the public, by a two-to-one majority among all the respondents in all the boroughs concerned. Indeed, if we add the petitions, the figure is 90% against the proposals.
	I went along to the meeting, I sat there, and I had my say, eventually. We were told that no decisions would be taken at that meeting, that people would go away over the summer and work up proposals, and that there would be further consultation with "stakeholders"-obviously we are not talking about vegetarians, but I do not quite know about the term "stakeholders".

Simon Burns: It is a new Labour term.

Mike Gapes: It may be a new Labour term, but it is still being used by the current Government, so if the Minister can do something to stop that, I would be grateful.
	There was a report back to "stakeholders" in September. I shall come to that in a moment, but let me first give a flavour of the responses that were received as a result of the whole exercise. For instance, the responses from the local authorities have been listed. The London borough of Redbridge sent in a clear response, which was a resolution adopted unanimously by the council that said:
	"having taken account of the need to provide a wide range of health services in Redbridge which are able to meet the needs of our growing and diverse population, we express our strong opposition to the Health for North East London ONEL proposals to downgrade services at King George Hospital which would include (a) closure of the Accident and Emergency department (b) the ending of critical care support and acute surgical and medical treatment; (c) the ending of Children's surgery and (d) the ending of maternity delivery in the Borough".
	That was the unanimous Redbridge position, supported by all parties and councillors among the 63 members of Redbridge council.
	Barking and Dagenham council took a similar position, writing in its covering letter that it was "concerned about the proposals". In particular, it was concerned that Queen's hospital in Romford, which is the larger of the two hospitals in the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust, would not be able to cope with the increased pressures, including the increased pressures on A and E, and maternity services. Interestingly, Waltham Forest council, which, in a previous incarnation in 2006, had come out in favour of the Fit for the Future proposals, said in 2010 that it would not comment on the A and E position. However, the council was critical that concerns about mental health had been neglected, saying that alternative services were needed. Waltham Forest council also said that Health for North East London needed to
	"spell out what will be involved in reducing the number of A & Es from six to five especially in terms of impact on the remaining A & E departments",
	adding that the proposals were not clear. Newham council said that it was not convinced by the proposals either:
	"We also note the significant changes to service provision at King George's hospital. It will be necessary to closely monitor any resulting impact on our local Newham Hospital... Our expectation is that any increase in activity will be matched by appropriate resource levels."
	That was a conditional position. Tower Hamlets did not want to comment on the proposal either. Among the borough councils-these are representative bodies, the people who represent the community-there was either a clear opposition or at least indifference or ambivalence.
	What about other organisations? I have already mentioned the Newham trust. It said something very important in its documents, that
	"experience with the Gateway Surgical centre supports the model of locating elective care in a separate building but on the same site as acute provision, allowing easier access for staff."
	The whole thrust of the proposals is to separate the two out, whereby the elective and the acute are in different places, yet this has been questioned even by one of the hospitals that could benefit by receiving the transferred patients.
	The position adopted by other organisations is also significant. The Ipsos MORI documents make it clear that very strong views were expressed. The essence of my debate is captured by an important sentence, where it states:
	"The views opposing the reduction... from six to five hospitals providing accident and emergency, critical care and maternity services...came from organisations representing the public (elected local authorities and patient representative groups such as LINks)".
	It continues:
	"It should also be noted that some opposition was also expressed from representative groups associated with NHS staff, notably some Local Medical Committees."
	Who, then, is in favour of these proposals? Not a lot of people, it seems. Within the local community in Redbridge, it is very hard to find anybody in favour of the proposals. Perhaps some people in other boroughs might be found, but it is certainly true that in Redbridge it is very hard to find anybody of any authority or any representative political role who is prepared to speak out.

Lee Scott: Does my constituency neighbour agree that of the people who seem to be in favour of this proposal, none have actually lived in the area? Indeed, if I am not mistaken, some of the doctors involved in it were from Newham.

Mike Gapes: The clinical director behind these proposals is Dr Mike Gill, who is based at the Newham General hospital, and the general practitioners involved come from Waltham Forest. I think we can safely draw the conclusion that they have other interests in these matters.
	On the proposals to end maternity services, I remind the House that we have had a maternity hospital in Ilford since 1926 and there are presently about 3,000 births a year at King George hospital. The Ipsos MORI summary of the conclusions states:
	"On maternity services specifically, there were detailed submissions that made specific comments",
	some of which are cited. It notes that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists-a not insignificant organisation-had
	"changed its view of maternity service provision"
	and cites the Royal College as saying:
	"The trend towards a rising birth rate in this area over the next decade cannot be ignored, which will have a direct bearing on the capacity of a large unit at Queen's Hospital."
	It made the following recommendation:
	"Both units (King George V Hospital and Queen's Hospital Romford) should be developed and sustained as fully-fledged maternity units."
	Those, it said, should be accompanied by "midwife-led units". That was directly contrary to the position taken by Heather O'Meara and the outer north-east London organisation.
	The document quoted the Royal College of Midwives as saying that the proposal for King George V Hospital and Queen's raised concerns about
	"the ability to deliver the configuration of services in such a way as to not result in a high volume of births at Queen's Hospital."
	It also said that there were
	"challenges in relation to...capital investment and workforce planning...in achieving the recommendations."
	The team of midwives from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, who work at the two hospitals, said:
	"Geographically, there will be no obstetric unit in Redbridge to serve the women of this area. Residents of Barking will need to travel further for obstetric led care... Although women will have greater choice for low risk birth there will only be one option for hospital birth in three boroughs."
	I could produce more quotations. There are so many in the document. But what has been the outcome? A meeting was organised on 30 September, of which neither the hon. Member for Ilford North nor I was given notice. I only received the information about it because one of my local councillors managed to get hold of the slide presentation. It was advertised as a "stakeholder discussion event", and was held not at West Ham football ground but at the Holiday Inn, Newbury Park, in the constituency of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford North.
	The "stakeholder discussion event" document is very interesting. Anyone reading it might assume that the recommendation was done and dusted. It contain presentations by Heather O'Meara, who is now the chief executive of all the outer north-east London primary care trusts; by Helen Brown, who works for NHS London; and by leading figures in the process. They spoke of "proposals".
	There has been a consultation, which has revealed serious concern among professional organisations in the area, and strong opposition from the local authorities. It might be assumed by anyone believing that consultation and public involvement really matter that something would have changed. On Friday morning, my neighbour and I had a meeting with Heather O'Meara, who described the outcome of the consultation as "some caveats". She also said that the stakeholder discussion event had been based on clinical working groups where the ideas had been tested, and that there had been consultation with GPs and a huge number of public events. I had not noticed those huge events. Perhaps they happened in big places.

Lee Scott: Is it not fascinating that neither of the two local Members of Parliament most closely affected by the proposals was informed about the events and consultation that were allegedly happening, or were invited to take part? Is that not slightly strange? It might give us a complex: we might imagine that they did not want us there.

Mike Gapes: Why on earth could that be? I do not know.
	On Friday morning, we discovered that the stakeholder discussion document and other proposals would be put before a meeting on 15 December of the joint committee of primary care trusts for outer north-east London. We asked questions. We asked what the process is before then. We asked whether there will be a role for the health overview and scrutiny committees of the local councils-we were told that there would not be. We asked what would happen to the role of the London region NHS and we were told that the meeting on 15 December will make the decision. So we asked who is to be consulted about these proposals before that meeting. That is when the statements that have been made and the positions of the Minister were quoted to us; what we were told is in line with the guidance from the Government since the election.
	The Minister wrote to me on 12 October about a complaint I had received from a constituent. He stated:
	"In May, the Secretary of State for Health announced a review of all service change proposals. He has outlined new, strengthened criteria that he expects decisions on NHS service changes to meet...proposals must have support from GP commissioners; arrangements for public and patient engagement, including local authorities, must be further strengthened; there must be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning proposals; and proposals must take into account the need to develop and support patient choice."
	Let us leave aside the last two of those. We have been given a clear view from our local authorities about the original proposals and we have been given a clear view of the public attitude to those proposals. What we have now been given is a slight tweaking of the consultation document. Three or four minor modifications have been made to the proposals and, as a result, those involved now intend to go ahead with the essence of the original proposals.
	To confirm what I am saying, I wish to quote from a document produced by Helen Brown as part of the stakeholder consultation. On page 48 of the stakeholder presentation, under the title "Activity and capacity", is a table describing the
	"Proposed shift of activity to hospital sites".
	The figure for the row headed "Non-elective", which relates to people admitted to the accident and emergency department for King George hospital, is minus 25,937 or minus 100%. That hospital's figure for "A&E" is minus 59,565, or 100%, and its figure for births is minus 2,910, or minus 100%. Its elective activity is increasing, with some 18,000 being transferred from the Queen's hospital, so that is a partial shift. Originally this was to be limited, but now some facilities are being moved in. However, the essence of the proposals-to get rid of the A and E department, the children's surgery and births at the King George hospital site-remains.
	So what does this mean? It means that the consultation that has been engaged in at great cost-the public stakeholder engagement-is a sham, a charade and a waste of money. The people behind the proposals, who tried and failed in 2006, and who tried in 2009 only to have this dragged out for longer, are now absolutely determined. This is a juggernaut being driven by unelected people in the NHS bureaucracy. They are disregarding the views of the local community and disregarding the Members of Parliament and the local councillors, and they are not going to be stopped because as far as they are concerned they are right.
	My neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford North, will doubtless wish to comment on the fact that on Friday morning we got into the essence of the issue, when we heard the argument that clinicians know best. In which case, what is the point of pretending that a public consultation is being carried out? What happens if the consultation comes up with a conclusion that these people do not like? I recall the old quote of Bertolt Brecht, "The electorate has made the wrong decision, so change the electorate." Joseph Stalin's 1936 constitution was adopted and the result was announced the day before the referendum was held in the Soviet Union. Are we moving that way with certain people in the professions believing that they know best, disregarding the wishes of the community?
	King George hospital is not perfect. We have a lot of problems, but we also have a lot of problems with the other hospital in the trust, Queen's hospital. The two together have a big ongoing deficit that they have had for five years and, despite promises to get rid of it, they have not done so. There is a real difficulty and I believe that an element of this is financially driven. As I pointed out in 2009, getting rid of the A and E at Newham general hospital would save £28 million a year, whereas getting rid of the A and E at King George hospital-according to the figures provided by those behind the proposals, not mine-would save only £19 million. Nevertheless, the decision has been made to go ahead with getting rid of the A and E at King George.
	We are facing a very important time. We need a decision that is in the interests of the people, not in the interests of the people who run the bureaucracy of the national health service. There are strong arguments, but I want to finish with a quotation of the Prime Minister. In answer to a question yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), the Prime Minister said:
	"The whole point of the reform of the NHS is to put power in the hands of patients and doctors, so decisions about hospitals will be made on the basis of what local people want".-[ Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 947.]
	Interestingly, last Friday morning we asked, "How will the doctors be consulted?" We were told, "We will take soundings," so we asked, "How do you take soundings? Is there a ballot? Do the GPs vote on whether they agree to the proposals?" We were told, "No, we will take soundings of health practices." So, we asked, "What is a health practice?" My GP is part of a health centre and there are eight or nine GPs. We were told that each practice would have one vote. So, a single-handed GP could be equivalent to eight or 10 GPs in a group practice or health centre. That is a very strange way to find something out. It is perhaps like the Hong Kong Legislative Council or the estates in pre-revolutionary France, but if we are talking-as the Prime Minister said-about decisions made on the basis of what local people want, we need to be clearer about who is making those decisions.
	I fear that at the meeting on 15 December these proposals will be pushed through regardless, and the running down of the accident and emergency-which is already beginning, with salami-slicing-and of the maternity services will start, so that in future no one will be born in Ilford except in the back of a car or taxi rushing them to the Queen's hospital in Romford. People who need to go to the local hospital will not have that hospital facility, because they will have to go several miles away.
	These matters are so important to my community and my constituents that I hope that I will not have to come back to this House for a fourth time with a debate on the future of my hospital-but if necessary I will do so. I hope that when the Minister responds he will reassure me that this process will not be allowed to be driven in the interests of people who are disregarding the wishes of the local community and their elected representatives.

Lee Scott: I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), on securing the debate. We must both be feeling déjà vu, because we have found ourselves on many previous occasions debating and saying exactly the same things about this issue. However, the situation now is totally different.
	I will try not to repeat anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, although the events of last Friday were a little surreal, to say the least. We sat down and were told about all the consultation that had been taking place, which was surprising news to us. I had received an invitation that was posted the day after the meeting had taken place-so my hosts were obviously desperate for me to be there! I realise that they might have been unhappy with me because of my views about Redbridge NHS, but not inviting me to the meeting until after it has happened was, perhaps, a step too far. The hon. Gentleman has compared that to a rigged Afghani election, but I think that is being unkind to rigged Afghani elections; it was far worse than that.
	This House has been presented with a petition of about 9,000 signatures from my constituents in Ilford North and another from the hon. Gentleman that brings the total of signatures to about 27,000. Our local paper, the Ilford Recorder, has also presented petitions to Downing street, of a further 16,000 signatures. In my past five and half years as Member of Parliament for Ilford North, not once has anyone e-mailed, phoned, come to my surgery or written to me to say, "We think it would be a wonderful idea to carry out these proposals," and all these thousands of people are opposed to it.
	I shall now turn to the process. Two weeks ago I received a phone call from the Ilford Recorder asking what I thought of these proposals, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are virtually identical to proposals we have previously seen on various occasions over the past number of years. I said that these proposals could not be proposals because they had not undergone any independent review, which we had clearly said would take place if we became the party of government and which was clearly stated during the last days of the previous Government. Miraculously, by the time the press phoned Redbridge NHS back, they were no longer proposals; they were now just a possibility or an option-although, funnily enough, I did not see too many other options in the document. Like the hon. Gentleman, I found that my copy of the document turned up three weeks after the meeting-which I admit was not held at West Ham United football ground. It turned up in my office late-after the meeting-so I could not possibly have commented about any of its contents as I had not known about them at the time of the meeting.
	It seems to me that the previous leader of Redbridge NHS, who is now in a much more exalted position, had decided that, come rain or shine, she wanted to push through the proposals. In the past, both the hon. Gentleman and I as the local Members of Parliament were called in for a meeting or a briefing separately, not together. I should say here that even though we clearly disagree on a number of political matters, it is not possible to put a cigarette paper between us on this matter; we are in total agreement on it. Those at Redbridge NHS have, without any question, tried to change that by briefing us separately. The people briefing us have come from Newham and a practice that is serviced by Waltham Forest, so would obviously not be affected by any changes at King George hospital. They would say what a wonderful idea it was, yet in all the conversations and meetings I have had, not one GP has said that; they have all said that they are concerned about its impact .
	If, God forbid, someone were to be involved in an accident or have a heart attack in my constituency, they could die before they got to Queen's hospital accident and emergency unit. I am not over-dramatising; that would sometimes happen, and that is why there has been such an outcry against this plan from the whole of Redbridge-not from one part of it or from one political party, but from the whole of Redbridge.
	I go back to one freezing cold day last year when I, the hon. Member for Ilford South and hundreds of others marched through sleet to protest against proposed closures to the accident and emergency, maternity and other services at King George hospital. We did the same again-admittedly in much more clement weather-this year. The message was loud and clear: the results of this lack of consultation that are going forward to the meetings on 15 December are absolutely null and void and do not meet any of the criteria, because there was no proper consultation.
	I and the hon. Member for Ilford South have held meetings in our respective constituencies and invited members from Redbridge NHS. I want to state clearly that in no shape or form were they political meetings, because they were open to the general public and I have no idea of the allegiances of those who attended them. None the less, the message was loud and clear: we need to maintain our accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital. They cannot be closed by stealth. They cannot be salami-sliced and closed. They must remain.
	I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for their help and support. Their areas are serviced by Queen's hospital. People might not think, because that hospital is not under threat, that the proposals would affect my hon. Friends' areas, but of course it would, because the pressure of 250,000 extra people using Queen's hospital will have a knock-on effect for their constituents.
	I do not intend to detain the House further. However, like the hon. Member for Ilford South, I tell the Minister that this consultation is wrong. If those concerned try to railroad through the suggested closures on December 15, we will resist.

Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on securing this debate. I know from previous debates he has secured on this subject how strongly he feels about it-and rightly so-as a constituency Member of Parliament. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on his contribution. He has worked for a long time with the hon. Member for Ilford South in representing the interests of their constituents. I know that the quality of service provided by the local NHS is very important to both hon. Members and their constituents, and I assure them that I share their commitment to achieving the best possible health care for the people of north-east London. I also praise the hard work and dedication shown by NHS staff in north-east London. Their jobs are not always easy, but they always strive to provide the best possible care for patients.
	Today, the NHS has some of the best people and facilities in the world, but when it comes to what is really important-outcomes for patients-we lag behind many other countries. The Government's ambition is clear: for health outcomes in this country to be among the best in the world. Just over three months ago, we published the White Paper, "Liberating the NHS", showing how we will achieve the real gains. We will liberate clinicians from top-down targets and endless micro-management by politicians and civil servants. It is an ambitious plan for reform focused on three key aims: the first is to put patients first. Patients should feel that no decision is made about them without them. Secondly, we want to focus on outcomes, not inputs or processes, and to build a culture of evidence and evaluation, to ensure that health care uses innovation and evidence to provide quality care and is accountable for improving outcomes. Thirdly, to deliver the best care, we must empower NHS staff, whose responsibility it is to give that care. Decision making must take place close to patients, so that clinical decision making can be better combined with the use of resources. GPs already influence the commissioning of decisions by the way in which they manage and refer patients, and by deciding which medicines to prescribe and which treatments. They decide what is best for their patients based on the options available and on their clinical judgment of what would be best for them.
	We are asking GPs to take the next natural step by giving the responsibility for designing, commissioning and paying for local services to groups of GP practices. This will ensure that decisions are clinically led, involving all other health care professionals, hospital consultants, nurses and social care workers in order to design services that put patients first and are focused on improving clinical outcomes.
	GP commissioning also opens up the potential for working closely with local authorities to commission services jointly-even for the pooling of budgets to tackle local priorities jointly. For example, by working closely with local authority and social care providers, far more can be done to help older people or those with a disability to live independently, reducing their reliance on the NHS by avoiding things such as hospital admissions.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) recently opened the Macmillan information and support centre at Whipps Cross hospital in north-east London. The centre is available free to anyone affected by cancer and offers confidential advice and support. Such partnerships between the NHS and the third sector take exactly the kind of innovative and exciting approach to health care that we are actively encouraging.
	Before addressing the specific concerns of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, I should set out the wider context of local health care reform. Thanks to the NHS, most of us will enjoy better health and longer lives than our parents and our grandparents. That is a tremendous achievement, as I am sure both hon. Members recognise, but, as the NHS effects great change on the health of this country, so the changing nature of the population must transform the NHS.
	An ageing population is just one of the many challenges to which the NHS must adapt over time. Every day, new medicines and treatments are developed to meet our changing lifestyles and expectations. We know that change can sometimes be unsettling, but we also understand that the NHS needs to evolve-to move with the times. All we ask is for the NHS to make collective, informed and local decisions that improve outcomes for patients.
	On 15 December a joint committee of primary care trusts will make some important decisions about the future of King George hospital and about health services in north-east London more generally. I am confident that those decisions will be made by those best qualified to make them, based on a solid foundation of clinical evidence and local engagement.

Mike Gapes: rose -

Simon Burns: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene at this point.

Mike Gapes: How are the views of elected local authorities, of elected Members of Parliament and of the community, as expressed even in that dubious consultation exercise, to be taken fully into consideration against an NHS management bureaucracy who seem determined to carry on regardless? Is 15 December the date of the final decision? Is there no other way in which we the public can have our say?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I fully understand how strongly he feels about the issue-what he recognises, from his constituents' point of view, as a potential problem-and how important it is to get the matter right. I shall not duck the question, but will the hon. Gentleman bear with me a little so that I can put it in context? I shall then respond to his intervention and answer his specific question about whether 15 December is the end of the road, or whether any other avenues might be open to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North.
	If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will describe how we reached this point. Back in February 2009, as he mentioned, the NHS in north-east London began to think about how it could better use its resources to provide safe, modern health care. The NHS in north-east London as a whole faces considerable challenges. Health outcomes and key health indicators are poor: people in the area have lower than average life expectancy and higher rates of infant death. The NHS recognised that it needed to improve services to meet those challenges head-on. For example, it found that long-term conditions could be managed better: instead of being admitted unnecessarily to hospital, patients could be treated in the community, closer to their homes.
	One of the solutions suggested was to turn two of the existing hospital sites-the Royal London and Queen's-into major acute hospitals and for them to become centres of excellence. Doctors can achieve that level of quality only if they see high numbers of complex cases, and patients can receive the best care only when surrounded by expert clinicians. To reach that critical mass of doctors and patients, specialist services would be consolidated into the two major acute hospitals, not spread thinly across each hospital in the region. The Royal London and Queen's would be supported by three local hospitals, all with accident and emergency departments. The final site-King George hospital, which has been the main focus of this debate-would also play a vital role, taking a lead in providing primary, community and urgent care.
	King George hospital would receive enhanced children's services. An urgent care centre at the hospital would operate around the clock, the task being to manage as many patients as possible outside A and E services. Access and continuity of care for minor injuries and illnesses would be significantly improved. I know that there has been concern about rumours that the local NHS is planning to close King George hospital. I can categorically reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that that rumour is not true. Among the substantial number of services proposed to stay or to be moved to King George hospital was a recommendation that the hospital become a centre of excellence for planned surgery.
	Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has proposed the transfer of all breast surgery from Queen's to King George. That will mean that some women who currently have treatment at King George but then have to be transferred to Queen's for surgery will have the whole procedure carried out under one roof, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will agree is an infinitely preferable and superior sequence of treatment to the present one. Those women will not have to go through the trauma and inconvenience of having to be moved to another hospital site for their surgery. In addition, local clinicians have identified a further 20,000 procedures a year that they believe would benefit from being provided solely at King George hospital.
	Of the proposals made in north-east London, I know the hon. Member for Ilford South is most concerned about the potential loss of maternity and A and E services from King George hospital. I hope to be able to reassure him that, whatever the outcome of the meeting in December, nationally this Government remain committed to maternity and A and E services. When somebody walks through the doors of an A and E department, an urgent care centre or a walk-in centre, what sorts of service should they expect? To which facility should they go in the first place for the most appropriate care for the condition from which they are suffering? Part of the anger that we often see when the local NHS suggests replacing A and E with other, more appropriate services is due to a certain degree of confusion about what those services provide. The Government are committed to clarifying that, and work is already under way to standardise which services can be expected in various facilities. As well as improving A and E services, we want to improve urgent care radically. We are committed to providing universal access to high-quality urgent care 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Whatever the need, place or time, patients should be able to find the care they need. That is what part of our reforms in A and E will achieve.
	The Government are also determined to drive forward improvements in maternity and newborn services so that women and their partners have access to local services and so that children have the best start in life. The safety of mother and baby is paramount. It is fundamental to safe, high-quality maternity care that a full range of services must be available to all women, whatever their medical and social circumstances. Services must be as near to home as possible, depending on the complexity of needs, with facilities and expertise available to provide optimum care.

Mike Gapes: I know that the Government are committed to improving the quality of care, as the previous Government were, but I have a large number of young families in my constituency and they will be forced to go several miles for the births of their children at Queen's hospital rather than going to a hospital in the community where they live, as people in Ilford have done for 80-odd years. Is there a national policy that births can be allowed only at sites with a coterminous accident and emergency department, or could the proposals be reconsidered? One of the arguments in the relevant documents is that maternity services have to be moved because the A and E is being moved. Is that national policy?

Simon Burns: It is not national policy that if there is an A and E department there automatically has to be a maternity facility by its side. If one strips out the whole area of safety and quality of care, which is vital, one realises that the guiding rule is that maternity services are provided where they are relevant to the local community's needs. It is about having the best siting relevant to the community's needs. Clearly, however, there cannot, for a variety of reasons, be a maternity ward in every hospital in the country. Where they are sited will be determined by need and by the wishes of local communities. Once the reforms are in place, it will also be up to commissioners to decide where to site maternity units.

Mike Gapes: The Minister has heard me quote the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which takes the strong view that there should be maternity facilities and births at both the Queen's and King George hospitals. I feel very strongly about this. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the people in NHS London, who are driving the change, and the people who deal with obstetrics and gynaecology-the experts-about what is necessary. Leaving aside the democratic arguments, the views of the people in the specialist royal college have not been taken into account.

Simon Burns: As with any proposals for reconfiguration anywhere, a range of views will be fed in, including those of the relevant royal colleges, GPs, clinicians, members of the public and other interested parties, and will be considered as part of the consultation process before a decision is made. I am going to come to the whole issue of consultations, on which the hon. Gentleman rightly has strong views, because I want to clarify the situation and, as I said earlier, I want to give him some answers about the options that might be open to him after 15 December.
	In pursuit of true local backing for the proposals in the hon. Gentleman's area, the local NHS has already started a debate about them. To date, it has talked through the issues with GPs, councillors, medical committees, national bodies and local patient representatives. I was going to say that perhaps he will recognise this from his own experience, as I am assured that the NHS has made every effort to keep him informed and to listen to his concerns. However, having listened to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said, it would seem that that is partly the case and there may have been certain slip-ups: for example, posting a letter the day after a meeting was held. I cannot confirm or deny that because I am not party to the information, but my hon. Friend has put it on the record, and if it did indeed happen that is somewhat unfortunate.
	The hon. Member for Ilford South submitted a petition on behalf of his constituents, and the local NHS has confirmed that that will be taken into account. However, it asks different questions from those in the official consultation, which slightly skews the point that he made about it. I understand that one of the questions was: "Do you support the closing of King George hospital?" I suspect that in the case of the vast majority of people signing it, the answer would be no, they do not support it. The trouble is that there is not, never has been and will not be a proposal to close the hospital. I hope that he therefore understands that the question is not relevant to the consultation on the reconfiguration of services.

Mike Gapes: I do not know what advice the Minister has had from his officials. I do not want to get into a long textual discussion, but he should get the full wording of the petition that I submitted. I have to admit that there were several petitions from different organisations and individuals, but mine referred specifically to A and E, maternity and children's services. It may have been headed, "Save King George hospital", "I support Mike Gapes's campaign", or whatever, but the wording specifically referred to those issues.

Simon Burns: I agree that we do not need to get into to-ing and fro-ing about what exactly was written. My point was that some of the questions-I am not saying all of them-on some of the petitions were not directly relevant to what was being consulted on. Having said that, it has been recognised that they will be considered as part of the consultation process.

Lee Scott: My own petition did not say anything like "Lee Scott's petition": it talked purely about the proposals to close A and E and maternity services, and made no reference to anything else. I therefore trust that those 8,000 names will also be taken into account.

Simon Burns: I have no doubt that they will, as part of the ongoing consultation and evaluation of responses to the consultation process.
	Before 15 December, the London strategic health authority will assess north-east London's readiness against the four tests that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced in May this year to ensure more local engagement in the proposed reconfigurations of services throughout the country. In certain previous consultations, there was a long-held view that although lip service was paid to local people and medical practitioners-clinicians and GPs-the views of the local community did not matter because, in effect, a decision had been taken at the launch and things would end up in exactly the same state at the end of the process.
	To give greater credence and importance to local views, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his changes to the criteria that had to be conformed with for reconfigurations to take place, to empower people to take part in the discussions and to ensure that their views would be fully considered before decisions were taken. To achieve that, he has said that reconfigurations and consultation processes that are already in progress will have to be checked against the revised and strengthened criteria to ensure that they have been carried out under the new format. I can assure the hon. Member for Ilford South that that will happen prior to the meeting on 15 December.

Mike Gapes: Will the Minister clarify who will do that? Will it be the person in the London NHS who is behind the proposals, or will it be somebody independent of the proposals?

Simon Burns: It will be done by the national health service in London. People could be tempted to shout "Foul" if they do not agree with the decision, but that does not mean to say that it necessarily is a foul. In the case of a straightforward matter such as checking whether the consultation process has taken place under the new guidelines, we have to accept the professionalism of the people carrying out the job, and trust that they will do it properly. If it emerged that the guidelines had not been abided by in any way-I hasten to add that I make this point illustratively, and I am not saying that it will-the hon. Gentleman would be extremely happy. If it were found that they had been abided by, he would need to have an open mind, and not automatically say that things had not been done properly.
	While the discussion in north-east London continues, the clinical working groups have already made changes to their previous recommendations. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give him some examples. From talking to parents it was obvious that many were anxious about the prospect of travelling long distances to get treatment for their children. Clinicians needed to find a way to reduce the chance of that happening, and now it is proposed that only children needing specialist or high-dependency care will be transported to specialist centres. That means that more children will be treated locally than was originally anticipated, but they will still have access to specialist care when they need it.
	Women told the NHS that they wanted more midwife-led care. As a direct result, a study has been commissioned, working with local mothers and mothers-to-be, to find out what choice really means to them. Clinicians are working up plans for midwifery-led units across the region as we speak.
	Some residents expressed concern about having no A and E at King George hospital. Doctors are still convinced that clinically, any small increases in travel time will be more than compensated for by having better, safer, faster care, but they have recommended changes to the original proposals for urgent care at the hospital. Now, as well as the 24/7 urgent care centre originally proposed, a 24/7 short stay assessment unit is being recommended. It would be staffed by a team of skilled clinicians with expertise in assessment and treatment as well as in emergency medicine. The service would offer facilities for longer periods of observation, assessment and treatment, including access to a range of tests not currently available in primary care and specialist advice from hospital clinicians. Staff would work closely with community health and social care services, including mental health services, so that as many patients as possible could be cared for in the community without recourse to a hospital admission.
	The NHS in north-east London is also working closely with Transport for London to ensure a good bus service between Queen's hospital and King George hospital. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is vital to help many of his constituents who may need to use such a service.
	I believe that discussions with the local community have already made a positive impact. The local NHS is now truly listening to GPs and consequently changing its plans. That reflects the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced to engage local communities with reconfigurations.

Mike Gapes: Will the Minister address my point about consulting GPs? How will their views be taken into consideration?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. My understanding is that the "health for north east London" programme team is prioritising engagement with GP practices whose patients would be most affected by the reconfiguration proposals, and GPs who are currently likely to be leaders in the commissioning consortiums that will flow from the NHS reforms.

Mike Gapes: rose-

Simon Burns: I will give way for the last time.

Mike Gapes: We are considering an important point. The letter from the Minister, the May proposals and the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday place great emphasis on GPs' views and wishes. Yet what we were told on Friday has made me very worried. Which GPs are we talking about-the lead person in a commissioning consortium, single-handed practitioners joining together and outvoting a group of GPs in a health centre, or what? There is no provision for a ballot. What is the process? People can get whatever result they want if they skew the process. My fear is that the process will be discredited unless it is seen to have democratic legitimacy. I suspect that we will have a big problem, because the views of certain GPs will be taken into account and those of others will not.

Simon Burns: I will confirm what I said before the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The consultation will prioritise engagement with GP practices whose patients would be most affected by the reconfiguration. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be a ballot of GPs, I do not agree. There should be engagement, discussion and GPs contributing to any reconfiguration proposals by meeting people who undertake the consultation process to make known their views and their preferences-the pros and cons that they envisage-but I do not think that a ballot is either feasible or necessary. To take his idea to its logical conclusion, why restrict a ballot to GPs? Why not have a ballot of social workers or community nurses? That sort of engagement is unnecessary when there are other perfectly satisfactory forms of engaging.
	If the hon. Gentleman supported what was happening, he would be happy with the procedures.

Mike Gapes: No.

Simon Burns: I think that he would. Let me point out gently and tactfully that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressly introduced criteria for the engagement of GPs, clinicians and other interested parties because of their concern that they did not have enough ownership of consultation processes. I have to say that until 6 May, for 13 years, we were not the Government-and that it was we who looked at the position afresh and recognised the concerns throughout the country about reconfigurations. By introducing his criteria, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the concerns of local communities that their views were not being properly considered. This Government, in a very short time-within two and a half weeks, I think-took decisive action to give greater power and ownership to those groups to contribute to consultation processes.
	On local scrutiny, which featured significantly in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I fully recognise that there are considerable public concerns about the proposals for north-east London. In the light of those, the Redbridge overview and scrutiny committee referred the case to the previous Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in January 2010. He asked the independent reconfiguration panel for advice. In its response, the panel concluded that a full review was unnecessary. In July 2010 my right hon. Friend the current Health Secretary accepted the panel's recommendation that due process by way of public consultation and formal engagement should be allowed to continue-a process that has not yet come to an end, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
	However, as I said, we are determined that local voices will be properly heard, and we expect any concerns to be taken extremely seriously. I shall lay out again for the hon. Gentleman the critical tests that have been applied in the consultation process in the past two or three months, and that will be applied until the consultation's conclusion. First, the proposals should have the support of GP commissioners; secondly, arrangements for public-patient engagement, including local authorities, should be further strengthened; thirdly, there should be greater clarity about clinical evidence underpinning any proposals; and fourthly, any proposals should take into account the need to develop and support patient choice.
	Given the complexity and scale of the challenge in London, the Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman knows, called a halt to existing clinical strategies and asked the NHS to look at its plans afresh. That means that north-east London now has an opportunity-it has had one for some time-to have a frank and open discussion with GPs, clinicians, councils and patients on how their health services can change for the better. I believe that if that process is managed well, any changes made will lead to better health care for people across north-east London, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
	As was said in the debate, the question of whether those four criteria are fully met will be considered prior to the meeting on 15 December. Providing it is seen that those criteria have been met, the meeting will go ahead, and a decision will be taken. What happens if the decision is not popular with a number of people? I suspect, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that it will not be. Unless I misheard him, he said that the overview and scrutiny committee would have no opportunity to look at the proposal, reach a decision on it and write to the Health Secretary if necessary. I am not quite sure why he said that.

Mike Gapes: My understanding of what we were told at the meeting on Friday is that the decision on 15 December will be the final decision, subject only to the Secretary of State, and that there was no intermediate process. If that is inaccurate, I would be delighted, but that was my impression from what we were told on Friday. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) will confirm that.

Simon Burns: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman was told on Friday, and I hope that I will be able to delight him. My understanding is that after the meeting on 15 December, the OSC can look at the decision that has been made. If it is not convinced that it is the right decision, it can contact the Secretary of State. That is a step forward from what the hon. Gentleman was told at his meeting on Friday. We cannot anticipate the decision to be taken on 15 December, because that would be irresponsible, but I have confirmed that he will have some further opportunity-if warranted by the OSC's decision, because we cannot prejudge that either-to have the decision revisited.
	As I have said, we must not prejudge the outcome of the meeting of the joint PCTs on 15 December, when local NHS leaders will gather to make a decision that will dictate the future of health services in north-east London. I believe-even if I do not altogether carry the hon. Gentleman with me-that that decision will, rightly, be made locally. I understand that these issues arouse strong feelings: they involve difficult decisions about how resources should be used to achieve the best care for patients, which must always be the priority for, and guiding force behind, any reconfiguration or provision of health care.
	Similarly, the NHS must continue to develop its plans for the future, and it must do so by giving local people and GPs a far greater say. Obviously, we will have to wait to hear the judgment on how the consultation has been carried out in relation to the four criteria laid down by the Secretary of State, but we need to create an NHS run by empowered professionals free of the shackles of central Government. The NHS has received massive investment, but it is drowning in bureaucracy. We will cut the red tape and sweep it away, letting NHS professionals organise themselves locally. It is a measure of the importance that we afford the NHS and the future health of this nation that its budget will be protected, as was confirmed in the announcement of the comprehensive spending review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday.
	The hon. Gentleman must await the decision on 15 December. I am convinced that what will be done throughout the health service, especially in the case of difficult reconfigurations, will have as its guiding priority the desire to get the highest-quality health care for all our constituents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.